Facts:

The case involves Luciano P. CaAedo (petitioner) against Kampilan Security and Detective Agency, Inc. and its owner, Engr. Ramoncito L. Arquiza (respondents). The events leading to the case began when the petitioner was employed as a security guard by the respondent agency on November 20, 1996, and was assigned to the Naga Power Barge 102 of the National Power Corporation (NPC) in Toledo City. On May 8, 2003, he was suspended for one month due to a report from Allan Alfafara of NPC, alleging that he was not wearing the proper uniform while on duty. Following this suspension, on June 2, 2003, NPC informed the respondent agency that it no longer required the services of the petitioner and requested his replacement. Subsequently, on June 17, 2003, the petitioner requested a certification from Arquiza regarding his intended retirement. On June 25, 2003, Arquiza issued a certification stating that the petitioner was terminated from his employment effective May 7, 2003, at the requ...

Facts:

Employment and Assignment

• Petitioner, Luciano P. CaAedo, was hired by respondent Kampilan Security and Detective Agency, Inc. on November 20, 1996, to serve as a security guard.
• He was assigned to handle security duties at the National Power Corporation’s Naga Power Barge 102 at Sigpit Load Ends, Lutopan, Toledo City.

Incident Leading to Suspension

• On May 8, 2003, petitioner was suspended for one month for allegedly not wearing proper uniform as per the report of NPC’s Allan Alfafara.
• The suspension supposedly resulted from an alleged infraction and was executed without petitioner being given the opportunity to explain his side.

Termination Certification and Retirement Request

• On June 2, 2003, NPC informed the respondent agency that it no longer required petitioner’s services, requesting a replacement.
• On June 17, 2003, petitioner requested a certification regarding his intended retirement.
• Respondent Ramoncito L. Arquiza, General Manager of the agency, issued a Certification on June 25, 2003 stating that petitioner’s employment with the agency spanned from November 20, 1996 up to May 7, 2003 and that his assignment at NPC was terminated “as per client’s request.”

Labor Arbiter Proceedings

• Petitioner filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, and non-payment of various monetary benefits before the Labor Arbiter, alleging unjust suspension and termination.
• Petitioner contended that the suspension was unjust due to fabricated evidence and lack of due process, and that the certification clearly indicated he was terminated.
• The Labor Arbiter ruled in petitioner’s favor finding the suspension illegal and declared petitioner was illegally dismissed, awarding separation pay, backwages, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay, subject to other claims being dismissed or modified.

Proceedings Before the NLRC

• Respondents appealed the Labor Arbiter’s decision before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), arguing that the certification did not amount to a dismissal but rather signified a “pull-out” from the NPC assignment.
• Initially, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision with reservation (including a deduction for an outstanding cash advance), but later reversed and set aside its own earlier decision.
• In the Resolution dated October 20, 2005, the NLRC held that there was no actual dismissal; petitioner was merely placed on a “floating status” after his removal from the NPC assignment and his own intent to retire was evident.

Court of Appeals and Petition for Review

• The Court of Appeals (CA) in its January 25, 2007 decision denied petitioner’s petition, observing that the evidence indicated a suspension and re-assignment issue rather than an outright dismissal.
• The CA noted that despite the use of “terminated” in the Certification, the factual findings – including the absence of any formal dismissal order and petitioner’s own actions following suspension – supported that he was not actually dismissed but on temporary “off-detail” assignment.
• Petitioner, contending that the use of “terminated” in the Certification clearly evidences dismissal, raised this matter further in his Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Issue:

Interpretation of Termination

• Whether the term “terminated” in the June 25, 2003 Certification unequivocally indicates that petitioner was dismissed, or if it merely denotes a pull-out from a particular assignment as argued by respondents.
• Whether the documentary evidence, including the aforementioned Certification, is sufficient on its face to prove actual dismissal.

Due Process and Proof of Dismissal

• Whether petitioner’s due process rights were violated when he was suspended without being given an opportunity to explain his side.
• Whether the lower tribunals erred in not requiring additional positive and overt acts evidencing dismissal beyond the ambiguous wording of the Certification.

Entitlement to Monetary Claims

• Whether petitioner is entitled to separation pay and backwages on the ground of illegal dismissal despite the finding that he was not formally terminated but placed on a floating status.
• Whether the deletion of backwages and separation pay by the NLRC and upheld by the CA is justified under the established facts and applicable law.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)