Case Summary (G.R. No. 179326)

Background of the Case

• The petitioner, Luciano P. Caedo, was employed as a security guard by Kampilan Security and Detective Agency, Inc. from November 20, 1996, until May 7, 2003.
• He was suspended for one month starting May 8, 2003, due to a report of not wearing the proper uniform.
• On June 2, 2003, the National Power Corporation (NPC) requested the agency to replace him, indicating they were no longer interested in his services.
• Petitioner requested a certification for his intended retirement, which was issued by the agency on June 25, 2003, stating he was terminated as per the client's request.

Labor Arbiter Proceedings

• Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, and non-payment of benefits against the respondents.
• He claimed his suspension lacked valid grounds and due process, asserting that the report against him was fabricated due to personal reasons.
• The respondents contended that he was not dismissed but merely pulled out from his post at NPC due to their request for a replacement.
• The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring his dismissal illegal and awarding him various monetary claims, except for underpayment of wages.

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Proceedings

• Respondents appealed the Labor Arbiter's decision, arguing that the certification did not prove dismissal and that the term "terminated" meant "pulled-out."
• The NLRC initially affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision but later reversed itself, stating that the petitioner was not dismissed but was on a floating status after being relieved from his post.
• The NLRC acknowledged the illegal suspension but denied the claims for backwages and separation pay, ordering only limited monetary compensation.

Court of Appeals Ruling

• The Court of Appeals denied the petition for certiorari, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.
• It noted several factors indicating that the petitioner was not dismissed but merely placed on temporary off-detail.
• The CA affirmed the NLRC's finding of illegal suspension and entitlement to salary during that period, along with holiday pay and service incentive leave pay.

Issues Raised by the Petitioner

• The petitioner contended that the CA erred in interpreting the term "terminated" as a mere pull-out and disregarded evidence supporting his claim of dismissal.
• He argued that the CA's findings were inconsistent with the evidence and sought additional monetary benefits, including backwages and separation pay.

Supreme Court's Ruling

• The Supreme Court denied the petition, emphasizing that the issue of dismissal is a question of fact not typically raised in a petition for review.
• It reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the e...continue reading

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 179326)

Case Overview

• This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Luciano P. CaAedo (petitioner) against Kampilan Security and Detective Agency, Inc. and its owner Ramoncito L. Arquiza (respondents).
• The case stems from a dispute regarding the alleged illegal dismissal of the petitioner from his position as a security guard.
• The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) decision that found no illegal dismissal, leading to this appeal.

Factual Antecedents

• Petitioner was employed by respondent agency as a security guard on November 20, 1996, stationed at the Naga Power Barge 102 of the National Power Corporation (NPC).
• He was suspended for one month starting May 8, 2003, due to a report regarding improper uniform usage.
• On June 2, 2003, NPC informed the agency that it no longer required the petitioner's services, prompting the request for his replacement.
• Following this, on June 17, 2003, petitioner requested a certification for his intended retirement, which was issued by respondent Arquiza on June 25, 2003, stating he was terminated effective May 7, 2003 at NPC's request.

Proceedings Before the Labor Arbiter

• After his suspension, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, and non-payment of benefits against the respondents.
• He claimed that the suspension was without valid grounds and not given due process and asserted that the report against him was fabricated due to personal motives.
• Respondents countered...continue reading