G.R. No. L-3745 - Agustin vs. Inocencio

The dispute originated from a labor complaint filed by two security guards employed by petitioner Symex Security Services, Inc., alleging underpayment of wages, overtime, holiday pay, premium for rest day, service incentive leave pay, clothing allowance, and 13th month pay. They also contended illegal deductions related to cash and firearm bonds and repair expenses.
Respondents claimed they were initially hired in May 1999 and were assigned to work at the premises of Guevent Industrial Development Corporation, a client of Symex. Their duties included guarding the entrance and exit of the building and monitoring vehicular movement.
They detailed their daily tour of duty as running from Monday to Saturday for 12 hours without receiving appropriate overtime or holiday premiums, service incentive leave pay, or the 13th month pay.

Respondents were required to work during legal holidays without receiving the corresponding holiday premium.
In February 2003, respondents began pursuing their claims by filing a complaint for nonpayment of various wage-related benefits and alleging wrongful deductions.

On February 25, 2003, respondents filed a complaint at the Labor Arbiter (LA) for unpaid benefits and illegal deductions.
On March 13, 2003, Capt. Arcego Cura, the Operations Manager of petitioner Symex, summoned the respondents, instructing them to report the following day to the head office.
On March 14, 2003, upon reporting to the head office, respondents were informed that they were being “relieved” from duty because the client, Guevent, had reduced the number of guards. They were told to return on March 17, 2003 for reassignment.
On March 17, 2003, Capt. Cura conditioned their reassignment on the withdrawal of their previously filed labor complaint by providing a sample affidavit of desistance. When respondents refused to comply, they were declared dismissed.
Respondents promptly amended their complaint on March 18, 2003 at the LA, adding a claim for illegal dismissal.

On April 30, 2010, the LA dismissed the illegal dismissal claim but ordered payment of proportionate 13th month pay computed based on the respondents’ daily wages.
The LA noted that respondents were “relieved” from their post and that a relief order does not in itself sever the employment relationship.
Evidence such as pay slips and the purported affidavit of desistance was deemed insufficient to prove additional claims, including overtime work or entitlement to service incentive leave pay.

On December 9, 2010, the NLRC reversed the LA’s decision, holding that respondents were illegally dismissed.
The NLRC concluded that Capt. Cura’s threat—demanding withdrawal of the complaint in exchange for reassignment—amounted to an unlawful termination.
It awarded a comprehensive monetary package covering separation pay, full backwages, underpaid wages, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, moral damages, exemplary damages, and 10% attorney’s fees.
The NLRC emphasized that the burden lies with the employer to prove that dismissal was for a valid or authorized cause, which petitioners failed to do.

On January 12, 2012, the CA affirmed the NLRC ruling, stating that the evidence supported the conclusion that the respondents were illegally dismissed.
The CA noted that the managerial prerogative in reassigning security guards was misused by petitioners as leverage to force the withdrawal of the labor complaint.
The CA also found that the employer’s failure to produce pertinent company records further substantiated the respondents’ claims.

A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioners and was denied on June 27, 2012.
Petitioner Rafael Y. Arcega later sought to be held solidarily liable with Symex, a point eventually modified by the Supreme Court, absolving him of such liability.

Whether the NLRC correctly reversed the LA’s ruling, finding that respondents were illegally dismissed.
Whether the NLRC acted within its discretion without gravely abusing its power in rendering its decision.

Whether petitioners are liable for backwages, underpaid wages, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and separation pay.
Whether the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees was properly awarded based on the misconduct alleged.

Whether petitioner Rafael Y. Arcega, as an officer of Symex, should be held solidarily liable for the monetary awards to respondents.
Whether the evidence supports piercing the corporate veil to impute personal liability to Arcega for the acts committed by the company.