G.R. No. 206716 - Jordan vs. Grandeur Security and Services, Inc.

On May 23, 2007, Ruben C. Jordan and his co-employees, Valentino Galache and Ireneo Esguerra, filed individual complaints for money claims against Nicolas Pablo and Grandeur Security and Services Corp.
The allegations included non-payment of minimum wages, holiday pay, premium pay, service incentive leave, thirteenth month pay, and cost of living allowance.
They additionally claimed that Grandeur Security illegally deducted ₱500 per annum as premiums for their insurance policies.
Galache further sought overtime pay for alleged work rendered beyond the standard eight hours.
On May 28, 2007, Jordan amended his complaint to include illegal dismissal as an additional cause of action, and the case was docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 05-05003-07.

Grandeur Security denied that it terminated Jordan; it maintained that it merely issued a memorandum reassigning him from Quezon City to Taguig City.
Grandeur Security also argued that Jordan abandoned his job by opting to file an illegal dismissal case instead of complying with the reassignment memorandum, and it denied the non-payment of money claims.
On May 27, 2008, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that:

Jordan was not illegally dismissed since he was only transferred to another workplace.
The immediate filing of an illegal dismissal case by Jordan conflicted with the claim of abandonment by Grandeur Security.
Consequently, the illegal dismissal allegation was dismissed for lack of merit.
Notwithstanding the dismissal of the illegal dismissal claim, the LA ordered Grandeur Security to reinstate Jordan—either physically or by including him in their payroll—and to pay monetary awards for salary differentials, holiday pay, cost of living allowance, thirteenth month pay, service incentive leave, and the return of the insurance premium deductions.
The computation of monetary awards was detailed for each complainant, and the order mandated compliance within ten (10) days.

Grandeur Security partially appealed the LA’s decision before the NLRC with respect to the monetary awards, while not contesting the reinstatement order (as it alleged mailing a return-to-work order dated July 11, 2008).
The NLRC denied the partial appeal and the subsequent motion for reconsideration, rendering the LA’s May 27, 2008 decision final and executory on January 20, 2010.
The complainants sought to execute the decision, and after a writ of execution, Grandeur Security paid ₱80,000 to Jordan, who executed a quitclaim on his money claims on March 3, 2010; however, the issue of his reinstatement remained pending.
On December 15, 2010, the LA pronounced the proceedings in NLRC-NCR Case No. 05-05003-07 as closed and terminated based on:

The individual quitclaims by the complainants.
Jordan’s alleged waiver of his right to reinstatement (supported by his failure to report for work despite receiving the return-to-work letter).

Jordan appealed the December 15, 2010 order on January 10, 2011, contending that he did not receive the return-to-work letter (arguing that the signature on the registry card was not his or his wife’s and providing specimen signatures as proof).
The NLRC, in its ruling dated February 21, 2011, set aside the December 15, 2010 order, finding merit in Jordan’s protest regarding the non-receipt of the letter and awarding him backwages and separation pay, plus attorney’s fees.
After denying a motion for reconsideration on March 28, 2011, Grandeur Security filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) to challenge the NLRC’s rulings.

On April 22, 2013, the CA nullified the NLRC’s rulings, holding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion by ordering backwages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees given that the May 27, 2008 decision was already final and found that Jordan was not terminated.
The CA noted that the consequence of an employer’s refusal to reinstate an employee should be citation in contempt and not the awarding of additional money claims.
In the petition before the Supreme Court, Jordan argued that the NLRC only raised the issue of his entitlement to backwages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees due to Grandeur Security’s non-compliance with the reinstatement order and because he did not receive the return-to-work letter.
Grandeur Security, conversely, maintained that Jordan was not terminated and that the evidence (registry receipt and registry return card) proved that the letter had been duly delivered.

Whether an employee who is not terminated from employment may be reinstated to work.

Does the concept of reinstatement apply when an employee, like Jordan, was only transferred and not dismissed?

Whether the NLRC had jurisdiction over Jordan’s amemorandum of appeal dated January 10, 2011, which alleged non-receipt of the return-to-work letter.
Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion by substantially altering the dispositive part of the final and executory May 27, 2008 decision, thereby awarding backwages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees.

Whether Jordan’s alleged failure to report for work, despite receiving communications, constitutes abandonment of his employment and a waiver of his right to be reinstated.