Case Digest (G.R. No. 194649)
Facts:
Soliman Security Services, Inc. and Teresita L. Soliman v. Igmedio C. Sarmiento, Jose Jun Cada and Ervin R. Robis, G.R. No. 194649, August 10, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court.
Respondents Igmedio C. Sarmiento, Jose Jun Cada and Ervin R. Robis (security guards) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and related money claims against petitioner security agency Soliman Security Services, Inc. and its president Terestita L. Soliman. The guards alleged employment from 1997/2003 until January 2007 at Interphil Laboratories, seven days a week for twelve hours daily, with underpayment (daily rates of P275–P325), nonpayment of ECOLA, night-differentials, holiday/rest day premiums, and unlawful monthly deductions (P400 cash bond, P100 mutual aid). They said attempts to discuss benefits with Teresita were rebuffed, and on 21 January 2007 they were ordered relieved from their posts and thereafter received no reassignment.
Petitioners acknowledged relieving the respondents on 20 January 2007 but defended that the guards were placed on a valid industry “floating status” under the agency’s contract with Interphil (submitted via a standing contract with Astrazeneca, Interphil’s predecessor). The agency maintained it repeatedly directed the guards to report for new assignments but they failed to do so.
The record shows notices of relief dated 20 January 2007 and a follow-up to Robis on 7 February 2007; respondents filed their first illegal dismissal complaint on 22 February 2007. A hearing before the Executive Labor Arbiter occurred on 26 March 2007, at which the agency allegedly offered reinstatement. The agency sent letters dated 24 and 26 April 2007 directing respondents to clarify intentions and threatening removal for “abandonment.” Respondents filed a Supplemental Complaint (3 August 2007) and executed complaint affidavits on 8 August 2007. The Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on 4 January 2008, finding abandonment and no dismissal.
On appeal the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter by decision dated 2 June 2009, finding the agency’s memoranda mere afterthoughts and concluding respondents were illegally dismissed (constructive dismissal), awarding backwages, separation pay and salary differentials. The Court of Appeals (CA) in...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion warranting relief under Rule 65 as raised in this Rule 45 petition?
- Were respondents constructively dismissed when placed on “floating status” and not reassigned within the permissible period?
- Are respondents entitled to backwages, separation pay and salary differentials as awarded by the...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)