Case Digest (G.R. No. 198357)
Facts:
Building Care Corporation / Leopard Security & Investigation Agency and/or Ruperto Protacio v. Myrna Macaraeg, G.R. No. 198357, December 10, 2012, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are security-service providers; respondent Myrna Macaraeg was employed by them as a security guard beginning August 25, 1996 and was assigned to Genato Building in Caloocan City. On March 9, 2008 she was relieved from that post, temporarily reassigned to Bayview Park Hotel from March 9–13, 2008, and thereafter allegedly given no further assignment; on September 9, 2008 she filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint alleging illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries, non-payment of separation pay and refund of cash bond.
Conciliation and mediation before the NLRC failed and the parties were ordered to file position papers. Respondent alleged constructive dismissal because she had been without assignment for more than nine months. Petitioners countered that the client had requested relief of respondent due to habitual tardiness, borrowing from employees/tenants and sleeping on duty; petitioners said they directed respondent to explain but she failed to do so and that her temporary posting at Bayview was not extended for client reasons.
Respondent also filed on June 18, 2008 an administrative complaint with the PNP Security Agencies and Guard Supervision Division but did not attend the conference hearings there. Petitioners produced a new assignment order detailing respondent to Ateneo de Manila University but, because respondent was absent, they failed to personally serve it; they then sent a letter directing her to report for assignment, which she did not obey, and continued to prosecute her Labor Arbiter complaint.
On May 13, 2009 the Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal claim but awarded respondent P5,000 as financial assistance. Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal with the NLRC but it was filed late; in a Decision dated October 23, 2009 the NLRC dismissed the appeal as filed out of time and declared the Labor Arbiter’s May 13, 2009 Decision final and executory as of June 16, 2009.
Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals; on March 24, 2011 the CA granted the petition, reversed and set aside the NLRC Decision, declared respondent to have been illegally dismissed, and directed reinstatement with backwages and monetary benefits, remanding to the NLRC to determine quantum. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for rec...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in liberally applying procedural rules to allow consideration of respondent’s appeal despite its being filed out of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)