Case Digest (G.R. No. 143215)
Facts:
Soliman Security Services, Inc. and/or Teresita L. Soliman v. The Court of Appeals and Eduardo Valenzuela, G.R. No. 143215, July 11, 2002, the Supreme Court First Division, Vitug, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Soliman Security Services, Inc. (and/or Teresita L. Soliman) is a security agency; respondent Eduardo Valenzuela was a regular security guard assigned to BPI‑Family Bank, Pasay City. On March 9, 1995 petitioners issued a memorandum relieving Valenzuela from his post — allegedly at the client's request — and instructed him to report to the agency for reassignment. Valenzuela continued to report for reassignment but, apart from a brief one‑week posting, was left on a floating status.
On April 7, 1995 Valenzuela filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, asserting that his services were terminated without valid cause and that he was entitled to unpaid overtime, 13th month pay, and holiday/rest‑day premium pay. Petitioners maintained the relief from post was temporary, that they had offered a new post which Valenzuela refused, and that being on floating status for 29 days did not amount to constructive dismissal.
On July 31, 1995 the Labor Arbiter (Ariel Cadiente Santos) found petitioners guilty of constructive dismissal and ordered reinstatement with full backwages from the date of dismissal until actual reinstatement, directed computation of monetary benefits, and awarded attorneys’ fees of ten percent of all sums due.
Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on October 16, 1998. The NLRC, by order dated November 11, 1998, directed petitioners to submit an affidavit attesting to the genuineness and continuing effect of the surety bond accompanying their appeal. Valenzuela contended petitioners had not validly perfected the appeal for failure to post the required bond. Petitioners filed a manifestation and affidavit on January 19, 1999. The NLRC, having noted the records showed a surety bond accompanied the appeal, gave due course and on April 30, 1999 reversed the Labor Arbiter and ordered separation pay in lieu of reinstatement (one‑half month for every year of service reckoned from October 9, 1990 to September 9, 1995). Valenzuela’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Valenzuela then brought the case to the Court of Appeals arguing the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the appeal despite an allegedly unperfected bond; the Court of Appeals (Ele...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was petitioners’ appeal to the NLRC validly perfected (i.e., did petitioners comply with the requirement to post an appeal bond or submit a surety bond)?
- Did placing respondent Valenzuela on floating status for 29 days constitute constru...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)