Case Digest (G.R. No. 96296)
Facts:
Agro Commercial Security Services Agency, Inc. v. The National Labor Relations Commission, Hon. Labor Arbiter Bienvenido V. Hermogenes and Manuel Jimenez, et al., G.R. Nos. 82823-24, July 31, 1989, Supreme Court First Division, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Agro Commercial Security Services Agency, Inc. is a private security agency; respondents are forty-six (46) former security guards and janitors (collectively, the private respondents) who had individual employment contracts with petitioner and were assigned to petitioner’s clients. Their contracts contained a provision permitting “temporary suspension” or changes in employment status in case of termination of the agency’s contract with a client (the so‑called “floating status”). The contracts also established that the agency would determine assignments, salaries, discipline and related employment conditions.
In early 1986 many of petitioner’s client contracts were terminated—allegedly due to sequestrations by the Presidential Commission on Good Government—and a number of private respondents were placed on floating status beginning September 16, 1986, some earlier. Some private respondents later obtained work with other security agencies; others remained without assignment. On July 25, 1986 forty-six respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal in the Arbitration Branch of the Department of Labor and Employment seeking separation pay (1/2 month per year), 13th month pay for 1986, and service incentive leave pay. Labor Arbiter Bienvenido V. Hermogenes rendered a decision dated March 19, 1987 in favor of the private respondents, awarding the benefits described. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed by a resolution dated January 29, 1988 and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on April 18, 1988.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction before the Court, alleging denial of due process by the NLRC, that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in treating the private respondents as petitioner’s empl...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC and the labor arbiter deny petitioner due process or commit grave abuse of discretion in adjudicating the complaints?
- Were the private respondents employees of petitioner (i.e., did an employer‑employee relationship exist)?
- Did the private respondents’ placement on “floating status” constitute illegal (constructive) dismissal entitling them to separation benefits; and, relatedly, did accepting other employment without resign...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)