Facts:

The case involves ACD Investigation Security Agency, Inc. (petitioner) and Pablo D. Daquera (respondent). The events leading to the dispute began when Daquera was employed as a security guard on February 15, 1990. On September 1, 1994, he was reassigned to the Public Estates Authority as a security officer, earning a monthly salary of P6,000.00 for a twelve-hour work shift. On April 4, 1996, Daquera was placed under preventive suspension, which he claimed was illegal, and subsequently dismissed for alleged dishonesty without prior written notice or investigation. The petitioner contended that Daquera was guilty of abandonment of post, drinking on duty, and extorting money from subordinate guards, leading to an administrative investigation. Following the investigation, Daquera was found guilty of dishonesty and neglect of duty but was reassigned instead of being terminated. Daquera, however, did not report back to work and filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter, which was do...

Facts:

Employment and Reassignment

• Employment Start: Pablo D. Daquera (respondent) was employed as a security guard by ACD Investigation Security Agency, Inc. (petitioner) on February 15, 1990.
• Reassignment: On September 1, 1994, he was reassigned to the Public Estates Authority as a security officer with a monthly salary of P6,000.00 for a 12-hour daily work shift.

Allegations of Misconduct

• Complaints Against Respondent: In March 1996, petitioner received complaints against respondent for abandonment of post, drinking liquor while on duty, and extortion from subordinate security guards.
• Preventive Suspension: Respondent was placed on a one-month preventive suspension effective April 4, 1996, pending an administrative investigation.

Administrative Investigation and Dismissal

• Findings of Dishonesty: After evaluating the evidence, petitioner found respondent guilty of dishonesty and neglect of duty.
• Reassignment Offer: Instead of termination, petitioner offered to reassign respondent to another post, but he refused and took a leave of absence.
• Failure to Report: After one week, respondent failed to report for work and instead filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, illegal deduction, and non-payment of benefits against petitioner.

Labor Arbiter’s Decision

• Illegal Dismissal: The Labor Arbiter ruled that respondent’s dismissal was illegal and ordered his reinstatement with backwages and monetary benefits totaling P314,518.00, plus attorney’s fees.

NLRC and Court of Appeals Decisions

• NLRC Decision: The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with backwages and benefits.
• Court of Appeals Decision: The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision, holding that petitioner failed to provide substantial evidence to justify the dismissal and that respondent did not abandon his work.

Issue:

1. Whether respondent was illegally dismissed.
2. Whether respondent abandoned his work.
3. Whether respondent’s quitclaim bars him from pursuing his money claims.
4. Whether petitioner complied with the procedural requirements for dismissal.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Modification of Award

• Separation Pay in Lieu of Reinstatement: Due to the strained relationship between the parties, the Court awarded separation pay equivalent to P36,000.00 (one month’s salary for every year of service) in lieu of reinstatement.
• Backwages and Benefits: Respondent is entitled to full backwages, allowances, and other benefits from the time of his dismissal until the finality of the decision.

Final Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modification, awarding separation pay instead of reinstatement and upholding the award of backwages and benefits.