G.R. No. 156125 - Munoz, Jr. vs. Ramirez

Petitioner, Samsudin T. Hamid, was hired by respondents (Gervasio Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. and Susan S. Gervasio) as a security guard on March 8, 2003.
In October 2010, he was assigned to work at Midas Hotel in Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, with a work schedule of seven (7) days a week, from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

On May 24, 2011, after completing his 12-hour day shift, petitioner was asked to work the night shift on his designated rest day due to the absence of the other night-shift guard.
Petitioner indicated he was unwell, citing symptoms such as a cough and difficulty breathing, and mentioned he was taking Decolgen to alleviate his condition.
Despite his explanation, he was required to work and guard Gate 2 of the hotel.

On May 25, 2011, while about to end his 24-hour duty, petitioner received a memorandum asking him to explain why discipline should not be imposed for being caught sleeping on duty.
On May 26, 2011, he submitted his written response admitting to taking a nap but justifying it on the grounds of his ill health.
In response, petitioner was suspended for 30 days without pay, effective upon receipt of the memorandum, with instructions to report in full uniform after the suspension.
During his suspension, he received another memorandum stating that he would be relieved from his post after the suspension based on the client's request.

After his suspension ended, petitioner awaited reassignment but received no further communication from the respondents.
On January 6, 2012, he filed a complaint for illegal suspension and separation pay, alleging illegal dismissal.
On March 14, 2012, petitioner amended his complaint to include illegal dismissal (constructive dismissal) as one of the causes of action.

Respondents claimed that they did not dismiss petitioner on May 25, 2011, or thereafter.
They maintained that, following petitioner's suspension, they sent four notices (dated October 10, 2011; November 8, 2011; December 8, 2011; and January 9, 2012) to his last known address instructing him to report for duty.
Petitioner's failure to report for duty, despite these notices, was cited by respondents as justification for his non-compliance and dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision on September 12, 2012, dismissing petitioner’s complaint for lack of merit while awarding a minimal compensation (20 days pay) for the harsh penalty sustained.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), on March 7, 2013, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, ruling that petitioner was not constructively dismissed and noting that he was notified to report back to work.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied in a resolution dated April 29, 2013.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA.
On August 28, 2015, the CA dismissed his petition and declared it closed and terminated.
The CA relied on the execution of a Quitclaim and Release by petitioner, which pertained to a different case involving a money claim (surety bond) where he received P9,500.00, and on the subsequent dismissal by the Executive LA in that separate proceeding.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration before the CA, which was eventually denied in a resolution dated March 31, 2017.

Petitioner alleged that the CA gravely erred in closing his case based on a Quitclaim and Release that pertained to another case involving the same parties.
He further contended that the CA erred in not ruling that he was constructively dismissed and in not addressing his entitlement to all his monetary claims.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in declaring the case closed and terminated on the basis that the approved Quitclaim and Release pertained to a different case involving the same parties.
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not ruling that the petitioner was constructively dismissed.
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not awarding the petitioner all his monetary claims.