Case Digest (G.R. No. 239396)
Facts:
This is Mark E. Samillano v. Valdez Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. / Emma V. Licuanan, G.R. No. 239396, June 23, 2020, First Division, Reyes, J. Jr., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Mark E. Samillano was hired by Valdez Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. (respondent company) on August 17, 2008 as a night security guard assigned to Mornesse Center of Spirituality (Mornesse) in Calamba, Laguna. On December 3, 2013, Samillano was relieved from that post upon a client’s request after he and a co-guard, Nilo Mamigo, impleaded Mornesse in a separate money-claim case against the agency and its president, Emma V. Licuanan. Mamigo was also relieved purportedly for AWOL.
On September 17, 2014, Samillano and Mamigo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims; they later filed an amended complaint excluding money claims. The respondents maintained the guards were not dismissed but had abandoned their posts—pointing to a Relieve Order allegedly served on December 3, 2013, the guards’ refusal to sign it, and the guards’ failure to report for reassignment to the agency’s head office despite notices.
Before the Labor Arbiter, the complaint was dismissed for lack of merit on September 15, 2015, which the Labor Arbiter explained by characterizing the guards as merely relieved from their posts pending reassignment. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in a January 28, 2016 Decision likewise held that the guards were not dismissed but had in effect abandoned their work; it relied on the client’s contractual right to request relief of guards and on the guards’ failure to report for reassignment and their delay in filing the complaint.
The Court of Appeals (CA) in its December 20, 2017 Decision disagreed with the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, finding that the guards were dismissed for just cause—gross and habitual neglect of duty (abandonment)—but that they were not afforded due process (no proof of return-to-work notices), awarding P30,000 each as nominal damages for non-obse...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that petitioner was dismissed for just cause (abandonment/gross neglect) when the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had found otherwise?
- Did petitioner deliberately and unjustifiably abandon his employment such that respondents had just cause to terminate him under Article 297(b) of the Labor Code?
- What is the appropriate remedy — reinstatement and entitlement to backwages — if there was no dism...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)