Case Digest (G.R. No. 149974)
Facts:
Philippine Industrial Security Agency Corporation v. Percival Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 149974, June 15, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Sandoval‑Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Philippine Industrial Security Agency Corporation (PISAC) hired Percival Aguinaldo in April 1988 as a security guard assigned to the Far East Bank & Trust Company (FEBTC) branch in Santiago City; he was promoted to Branch Head Guard in 1993. On November 13, 1998, PISAC’s roving inspector, Remy Tumamao, observed Aguinaldo allegedly without his perching cap and smoking while on duty. Aguinaldo submitted a memorandum explaining that his hair was wet from rain, he had briefly gone out to fetch a mechanic for an armored car with mechanical trouble, and that he was otherwise in complete attire.
On November 23–24, 1998, PISAC directed Aguinaldo to report to its main office for investigation and issued a Relief Order relieving him from the Santiago post effective November 24 and ordering him to report for clarification of status. That same day FEBTC Branch Head Antonio Banastas wrote to PISAC recommending Aguinaldo’s retention on the ground that the conduct was a first offense and that Aguinaldo had been a satisfactory employee for ten years. PISAC denied FEBTC’s request by letter dated December 2, 1998, and assigned Aguinaldo temporarily to FEBTC’s Malabon branch pending the opening of a new Santiago branch.
Aguinaldo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of separation pay with the Office of the Labor Arbiter in Tuguegarao. On November 3, 1999 the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed on March 29, 2000, finding that the reassignment amounted to an indefinite suspension tantamount to constructive dismissal and ordering backwages and separation pay. PISAC’s motion for reconsideration was granted by the NLRC on August 29, 2000, which reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal; Aguinaldo’s motion for reconsideration was denied on December 7, 2000.
Aguinaldo then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA). On May 31, 2001 the CA granted the petition, set aside the NLRC decision of August 29, 2000, and ordered PISAC to reinstate Aguinaldo to his former position without loss of seniority and to pay ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the present petition dismissible for forum‑shopping?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that Aguinaldo’s reassignment to Malabon amounted to constructive dismissal and in ordering reinstatement wi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)