Joel Pazo Suazo vs. Tri Megaforce Security Services Corporation

Facts:

Joel Pazo Suazo, G.R. No. 276106, August 20, 2025, the Supreme Court Second Division, Kho, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Joel Pazo Suazo sued respondent Tri Megaforce Security Services Corporation for constructive dismissal and assorted monetary claims.

Suazo alleged he was hired in 2008 as a security guard and that his last day of tour of duty at Edades Tower Garden and Villas was February 10, 2022; thereafter respondent gave him no new assignment and effectively constructively dismissed him. On December 15, 2022, Suazo filed with the NLRC a Complaint for constructive dismissal seeking separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, backwages, overtime pay, holiday pay and premiums, night shift differential, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, damages and attorney’s fees.

Respondent denied dismissal, asserting Suazo last reported for work on February 8, 2022 and advised he would renew his security license but never returned or submitted a renewed license; respondent sent three return-to-work orders (RTWOs) to Suazo’s address, which were not answered. Respondent later presented tracking receipts and bank certifications in support of its defenses and payments.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision dated February 20, 2023 dismissing Suazo’s Complaint for constructive dismissal but ordering Suazo to report to respondent within 10 days; the LA granted Suazo’s claims for 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay and denied other monetary claims. Suazo appealed to the NLRC; respondent filed a partial appeal from the LA’s monetary awards.

The NLRC, in a Decision dated April 28, 2023 (NLRC LAC No. 03-001048-23), denied Suazo’s appeal and partially granted respondent’s appeal by reducing the monetary awards after finding respondent had proof—bank certifications—of payment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay for 2019–2021; it also affirmed the LA’s finding of no constructive dismissal, relying on postal tracking receipts showing the RTWOs were undelivered because Suazo had moved out. Suazo’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a May 31, 2023 Resolution.

Suazo filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in CA-G.R. SP No. 179889, Decision dated January 30, 2024, dismissed Suazo’s Petition and, in a September 18, 2024 Resolution, denied reconsideration. The CA held the NLRC decision was supported by substantial evidence and thus not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Suazo then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, reiterating that the RTWOs were invalidly served and that he was constructively dismissed.

In the course of resolving the petition, the Court found that many authorities cited by Suazo’s counsel, Atty. Rodolfo R. Ranion, were mi...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Did the Court of Appeals correctly rule that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding that Suazo was not constructively dismissed?
• May the Court motu proprio institute an administrative disciplinary complaint against Suazo’s counsel for misrepresenting jurisprudence and, if so, was such...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)