Case Digest (G.R. No. 202613)
Facts:
Symex Security Services, Inc. and Rafael Y. Arcega v. Magdalino O. Rivera, Jr. and Roberto B. Yago, G.R. No. 202613, November 08, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.Respondents Magdalino O. Rivera, Jr. and Roberto B. Yago sued their employer, security agency Symex Security Services, Inc. and its President Rafael Y. Arcega, for nonpayment/underpayment of wages and related money claims and for illegal dismissal. The respondents alleged employment as security guards since May 1999, assignment to client Guevent Industrial Development Corporation, twelve-hour tour (Mon–Sat), and daily wages of P198 (to Mar 2001) and P250 (Apr 2001–Mar 2003), with various alleged unpaid benefits and illegal deductions. They filed an initial complaint for money claims on February 25, 2003.
After respondents were summoned to Symex’s head office on March 14, 2003, they were relieved from their Guevent posts and told to report March 17 for reassignment. On March 17 they were allegedly told they would not be reassigned unless they withdrew their labor complaint; they were given a sample affidavit of desistance and allegedly informed they could resign or be placed on forcible leave. They refused and were told they were dismissed; they amended their labor complaint on March 18, 2003 to add illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter (NCR-02-02569-03) dismissed the illegal dismissal claim in a Decision dated April 30, 2010 but awarded each respondent proportionate 13th-month pay (P1,543.75). Respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) (NLRC LAC No. 042778-05 (RA-06-10)), which, in a Decision dated December 9, 2010, reversed the Labor Arbiter and declared respondents illegally dismissed, awarding separation pay, full backwages (subject to prescription), underpaid wages and benefits, P10,000 moral and P10,000 exemplary damages each, and 10% attorney’s fees. A motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied (Resolution dated February 7, 2011).
Petitioners brought the case to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 119039 via certiorari; the CA in a Decision dated January 12, 2012 affirmed the NLRC, and its denial of reconsideration was embodied in a Resolution dated June 27, 2012. Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court challenging (a) whether the CA properly found no grave abuse of discretion ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly rule that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding respondents illegally dismissed?
- Are petitioners liable for respondents’ monetary claims, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees?
- Should petitioner Rafael Y. Arcega be held solidarily liable with Syme...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)