Case Digest (G.R. No. 203328)
Facts:
Joselito A. Alva v. High Capacity Security Force, Inc. and Armando M. Villanueva, G.R. No. 203328, November 08, 2017, the Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Joselito A. Alva (Alva) was employed by respondent High Capacity Security Force, Inc. (High Capacity) beginning November 1, 2003, and was promoted over time to Assistant Security Officer and Security Officer. While assigned to HRD-PTE, Ltd., a subordinate permitted an unauthorized entry; Alva was suspended on October 21, 2007, later placed on floating status, and by April 22, 2008 had not been reassigned, effectively depriving him of work and compensation.Alva, assisted by the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and multiple wage-related claims against High Capacity and its General Manager Armando M. Villanueva. The Labor Arbiter (LA) on October 28, 2008 found illegal dismissal, ordered reinstatement (or separation pay in lieu), backwages and other monetary claims, and awarded attorney’s fees equal to ten percent (10%) of the monetary award. High Capacity appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
On December 8, 2009 the NLRC modified the LA decision, concluding Alva was dismissed for just cause but that procedural due process was defective; it deleted backwages and separation pay, awarded nominal and other monetary damages, and retained the 10% attorney’s fees award. On March 30, 2010 the NLRC partially granted High Capacity’s motion for reconsideration and deleted the attorney’s fees, reasoning no bad faith attended the dismissal.
Both parties filed separate petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which consolidated the cases. On February 24, 2012 the CA held Alva was constructively dismissed (floating status for over six months) and that procedural due process was lacking, awarded backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and other monetary claims, but deleted the attorney’s fees because Alva was represented by the PAO. Motions for reconsideration were denied by the CA on August 30, 2012....(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in deleting the award of attorney’s fees in favor of Joselito A. Alva on the ground that he was represented by the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)