Title
Domingo Naldo, Jr. et al. vs. Corporate Protection Services, Phils., Inc. et al.
Case
G.R. No. 243139
Decision Date
Apr 3, 2024
Security guards filed claims for underpayment, illegal deductions, and unpaid benefits, alleging constructive dismissal; Supreme Court ruled in their favor, voiding quitclaims and awarding reinstatement, backwages, damages, and attorney's fees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 76728)

Petitioner and Respondent

• Petitioners: Security guards who allege underpayment of wages and benefits and constructive dismissal
• Respondent: CORPS, their employer, accused of misrepresenting payments to induce resignations and quitclaims

Key Dates

• Hire Dates: October 20, 2005 to February 2010
• Request for Assistance (SEnA): January–March 2015
• Labor Arbiter Decision: August 28, 2015
• NLRC Resolutions: December 29, 2015; February 24, 2016
• CA Consolidated Decision: February 15, 2018
• Supreme Court Decision: April 3, 2024

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution (labor rights, due process)
• Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended by RA 10396 (mandatory conciliation-mediation under Single-Entry Approach)
• New Civil Code (Articles 6, 22 on public policy and unjust enrichment)

Facts

• Petitioners worked 12-hour shifts daily, including holidays and rest days, without proper premium pay, 13th-month pay, service incentive leave pay, ECOLA, and without full social security and housing contributions.
• Monthly deductions of PHP 200–1,000 for “trust fund savings” and PHP 200 for cash bond.
• In SEnA conferences (March 3 and 10, 2015), CORPS offered to pay only trust fund and cash bond, conditioned on submission of resignation letters and quitclaims. Petitioners signed, relying on assurances that remaining money claims would follow.
• After receipt of limited payment, petitioners were prevented from resuming work and never received the balance of their claims.

Proceedings Before the Labor Arbiter and NLRC

• April 2015: Petitioners filed consolidated complaints for unpaid wages, benefits, and constructive dismissal.
• CORPS filed perjury complaints for alleged forum shopping; dismissed for lack of evidence (September 8, 2017).
• Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed petitioners’ complaints (August 28, 2015), upholding voluntary resignations and quitclaims.
• NLRC granted petitioners’ appeal (December 29, 2015), finding no intent to resign and voiding quitclaims due to uncertainty of claims; remanded to LA to compute monetary awards; denied reconsideration (February 24, 2016).

Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

• CA consolidated certiorari petitions of both parties.
• CA upheld NLRC resolutions (February 15, 2018), ruling:
– No forum shopping, as SEnA is mandatory and non-adjudicatory.
– Resignation letters and quitclaims were voluntary under assurances.
– No illegal dismissal; remand to LA proper for money claims.
• Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration denied (November 8, 2018).

Issues

  1. Whether petitioners committed forum shopping.
  2. Whether quitclaims executed under SEnA are valid and binding.
  3. Whether petitioners were constructively dismissed and thus entitled to backwages, damages, and attorney’s fees.

Forum Shopping

• Elements: identity of parties; of rights asserted; of reliefs such that judgment in one bars the other (res judicata).
• SEnA settlement is administrative, non-judicial, non-final, and a prerequisite to NLRC filing.
• No res judicata from unfulfilled SEnA agreement; mandatory conciliation-mediation under Art. 234, Labor Code.
• Conclusion: No forum shopping.

Validity of Quitclaims

• Labor jurisprudence disfavors quitclaims that exempt employers from liability and require workers to relinquish rights, void as contrary to public policy and New Civil Code Art. 22.
• Valid quitclaims must be voluntary, informed, with credible consideration, and not procured by fraud or unconscionable terms.
• Here, quitclaims were procured by misrepresentations that remaining money claims would follow.
• Minutes of Proceedings confirm pending claims.
• Conclusion: Quitclaims void ab initio for fraud and uncertainty; do not bar further claims.

Constructive Dismissal

• Definition: termination by employer’s acts making continued employment impossible or intolerable, compelling resignation; burden of proving voluntary resignation rests on employer.
• Petitioners signed resignation letters under false assurances of full payment.
• CORPS prevented resumption of work despite unfulfilled promises.
• Case law: involuntary resignations (by deception, intimidation, or intolerable conditions) constitute constructive dismissal (Doble v. ABB, Torreda, SHS Perforated Materials, Al-Masiya).
• Conclusion: Petitioners were constructively dismissed.

Entitlements and Damages

• Illegally dismissed employees are entit















...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.