G.R. No. 239396 - Samillano vs. Valdez Security and Investigation Agency, Inc.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 239396)

Factual Background

Petitioner was employed by Valdez Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. as a security guard from August 17, 2008 and was assigned to work nights at Mornesse Center of Spirituality in Calamba, Laguna. On December 3, 2013 petitioner and his co-guard, Nilo Mamigo, were relieved from their posts upon request of the client, Mornesse, after the guards impleaded Mornesse in a pending complaint for money claims. A Memorandum/Relieve Order instructed petitioner to report to the company head office on December 5, 2013 for reassignment; petitioner allegedly refused to sign or accept the Relieve Order, and did not report on the date specified. The company thereafter sent a Notice dated December 14, 2013 notifying petitioner that he was on AWOL and directing him to report for a new assignment at Anaconda Metal Fastener, Inc., the notice being mailed to the address in the 201 files via registered mail.

Procedural History at the Labor Arbiter

Petitioner and Mamigo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims, later amending to exclude the money claims. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on September 15, 2015, finding that the guards were merely relieved from their posts at the client’s request and that return-to-work notices were sent but not complied with, and that the client’s request was plausibly motivated by the guards’ impleading of the client.

National Labor Relations Commission Ruling

On appeal the NLRC issued a Decision dated January 28, 2016 affirming that there was no dismissal. The NLRC held that the client had the contractual right to demand relief of guards and that the agency could reassign personnel. The NLRC also found that petitioner and Mamigo had abandoned their work because they did not report to the head office after being relieved, they refused offered new posts, and they filed the complaint some ten months after their relief.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and held in its December 20, 2017 Decision that petitioner and Mamigo were dismissed for just cause under paragraph (b) of Article 297 of the Labor Code on the ground of gross and habitual neglect of duty, reasoning that the guards refused to report despite alleged return-to-work notices. The CA nevertheless found a procedural defect: the respondents did not adequately prove service of the return-to-work notices and failed to observe statutory due process, and therefore awarded each guard P30,000.00 as nominal damages for the absence of the twin notice requirement.

Issues Presented on Certiorari

The petition raised whether the CA erred in finding that there was just cause for termination. The Supreme Court clarified that, under Rule 45, Rules of Court, only questions of law are ordinarily cognizable, and that factual findings of the CA are final unless they are contrary to those of the administrative body from which the action arose or unless grave abuse of discretion is shown.

Standard of Review and Scope of Examination

The Court explained that when labor tribunals and the CA pronounce conflicting findings of fact, the Supreme Court may make independent factual findings to determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court cited precedents including Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation/Mr. Ellena and Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines v. Macapagal in articulating that the Court would examine whether the NLRC’s conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law and jurisprudence.

Legal Characterization of Relief and Floating Status

The Court recognized the industry practice that security contracts commonly permit clients to request replacement of guards and that an agency may reassign employees so long as there is no demotion in rank, diminution of salary or benefits, or bad faith. The Court invoked Tatel v. JLFP Investigation Security Agency, Inc. and Soliman Security Services, Inc. v. Sarmiento to explain that temporary “off-detail” or floating status is not a dismissal so long as it does not extend beyond a reasonable period; if it continues beyond six months it may ripen into constructive dismissal.

Findings on Whether There Was a Dismissal

Applying those principles, the Court found that petitioner was not dismissed. He was relieved from his post at the client’s request and was placed in temporary floating status with a specific offer of reassignment within six months, as shown by the December 14, 2013 notice that advised of a new posting and which was sent by registered mail to the address in the 201 files. Because reassignment was effected within six months, the Court held that neither actual dismissal nor constructive dismissal occurred.

Findings on Abandonment

The Court analyzed abandonment as defined under paragraph (b) of Article 297 and as construed in Symex Security Services, Inc. v. Rivera, Jr., which requires (1) failure to report for work without valid reason and (2) a clear intent to sever the employment relationship manifested by overt acts, the second element being determinative. The Court concluded that the respondents failed to prove deliberate and unjustified intent to abandon. The Court emphasized that mere absence alone did not establish abandonment, that petitioner’s filing of an illegal dismissal complaint seeking reinstatement negated any claim of intent to abandon, and that petitioner’s five years of continuous service undermined any inference that he intended to forego his empl

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 239396)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Mark E. Samillano was a security guard employed by Valdez Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. and is the petitioner before the Supreme Court.
Valdez Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. and Emma V. Licuanan were respondents below and are respondents in this petition.
The petition sought review under Rule 45 of the Decision dated December 20, 2017 and Resolution dated April 24, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 147502.
The case reached the Supreme Court as a petition for review on certiorari contesting the CA’s finding of just cause for termination.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioner was hired on August 17, 2008 to work a night shift at Mornesse Center of Spirituality in Calamba, Laguna.
On December 3, 2013 petitioner was relieved from his post pursuant to a client request after he impleaded the client in a prior complaint against the agency and its president.
A Relieve Order instructed petitioner to report to the agency head office on December 5, 2013 for reassignment, but petitioner allegedly refused to sign and accept the order.
A Notice dated December 14, 2013 was sent by registered mail to petitioner’s 201 file address advising of AWOL status and a new assignment at Anaconda Metal Fastener, Inc.

Procedural History

Petitioner and a co-employee filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on September 17, 2014 and later amended their complaint.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit on September 15, 2015, finding no dismissal but a relief from post.
The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed that there was no dismissal and found abandonment in its Decision dated January 28, 2016.
The Court of Appeals reversed and found just cause for dismissal but awarded P30,000.00 each as nominal damages for lack of procedural due process.
The Supreme Court denied the petition and reinstated petitioner without backwages.

Issues Presented

Whether the CA erred in finding that petitioner was terminated for just cause by abandonment or gross neglect of duty under Article 297 of the Labor Code.
Whether petitioner was dismissed from employment or merely placed on temporary floating status.
Whether the respondents complied with the procedural due process requirements before effecting termination.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner contended that he was placed on floating status and was not given valid notice of reassignment or dismissal and that filing of the illegal dismissal complaint with reinstatement prayed for negates abandonment.
Respondents contended that petitioner abandoned his post by failing to report to the head office after being validly relieved and that petitioner refused reassignment, thus constituting insubordination and abandonment.

Standard of Review

The Supreme Court reiterated that only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition but recognized that conflicting finding