Joel Pazo Suazo vs. Tri Megaforce Security Services Corporation

Procedural Posture and Applicable Legal Framework

Suazo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court assailing the CA Decision dated January 30, 2024 and Resolution dated September 18, 2024 in CA-G.R. SP No. 179889, which dismissed his petition for certiorari challenging the NLRC’s action. The principal legal framework guiding review in labor cases was the Court’s approach under Rule 45, as well as the doctrine that in labor disputes the Court generally examines only the legal correctness of the CA decision in relation to whether labor tribunals committed grave abuse of discretion, and that findings supported by substantial evidence preclude a finding of grave abuse of discretion. The Court also invoked professional responsibility principles, including duties of candor and accuracy in citing jurisprudence, under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).

Factual Background

Respondent hired Suazo in 2008 as a security guard. Suazo alleged that on February 10, 2022 he completed the last day of his tour of duty at Edades Tower in Makati City. He claimed that after that date, respondent did not issue him a new assignment despite his demands. On December 15, 2022, Suazo filed a Complaint for constructive dismissal with the NLRC, seeking separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, backwages, overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday and rest day premiums, night shift differential pay, thirteenth month pay, service incentive leave pay, and a claim for damages and attorney’s fees.

Respondent denied that Suazo was dismissed. Respondent asserted that Suazo last reported for work on February 8, 2022, and then informed respondent that he would be renewing his security license. Respondent maintained that after that date Suazo neither returned to work nor submitted a renewed license. Respondent further claimed that it sent three notices directing Suazo to report to his new assignment, but Suazo allegedly never replied. Instead, Suazo filed the complaint.

Labor Arbiter’s Ruling

In a Decision dated February 20, 2023, the LA dismissed Suazo’s complaint for constructive dismissal but ordered him to report to respondent within ten (10) days. The LA granted Suazo’s monetary claims for thirteenth month pay and service incentive leave pay, but it denied the remaining money claims for lack of basis. The LA reasoned that Suazo was not constructively dismissed; rather, after respondent sent RTWOs, Suazo failed to report for work.

The LA found that the first RTWO was sent to the wrong address belonging to another employee. However, the LA held that the second and third RTWOs were sent to Suazo’s correct address but were not delivered because Suazo had moved out and left no forwarding address with respondent. From these circumstances, the LA concluded that Suazo was at fault for not receiving the RTWOs. Since respondent did not dismiss Suazo and there was no abandonment, the LA held that Suazo could return to work.

NLRC Proceedings and Disposition

Suazo appealed to the NLRC, and respondent filed a partial appeal as to the monetary awards for thirteenth month pay and service incentive leave pay. In a Decision dated April 28, 2023, the NLRC denied Suazo’s appeal and partially granted respondent’s appeal by reducing the monetary award.

The NLRC affirmed the LA’s finding that there was no constructive dismissal. It acknowledged that the street name in Suazo’s address was misspelled in the later RTWOs. Nevertheless, it found that delivery personnel of the Philippine Postal Corporation were able to locate the address. The NLRC maintained that the RTWOs remained undelivered because Suazo had already moved out of the address. As to monetary awards, the NLRC found that, based on bank certifications submitted by respondent, it had already paid Suazo’s thirteenth month pay and service incentive leave pay for the years 2019 to 2021. It therefore reduced the total monetary award accordingly.

Suazo moved for reconsideration, but the NLRC denied the motion in a Resolution dated May 31, 2023.

Court of Appeals Ruling on Certiorari

Suazo then filed a Petition for Certiorari in the CA. In a Decision dated January 30, 2024, the CA dismissed the petition. The CA held that the NLRC decision was supported by substantial evidence, and thus it could not be said that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.

The CA found that Suazo failed to prove that respondent told him not to report for work after his last day of tour of duty at Edades Tower. At the same time, it found that respondent sent notices ordering him to return to work for his new assignment, and the record showed that Suazo did not heed these notices. The CA also emphasized that Suazo did not notify respondent of his new address. On these bases, the CA saw no reason to annul or reverse the NLRC ruling. Suazo’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated September 18, 2024.

Issue Raised Before the Supreme Court

Before the Supreme Court, Suazo insisted that there was constructive dismissal because respondent allegedly failed to serve the RTWOs. The Court framed the core issue as whether the CA correctly ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in holding that Suazo was not constructively dismissed.

Supreme Court’s Ruling: Lack of Merit

The Supreme Court denied the petition. It stressed that under Rule 45, review in petitions for review on certiorari is discretionary, and the Court may deny review when no special and important reasons justify it. It also held that a petition raising purely factual issues must be dismissed because the Court is not authorized to review such issues under the Rules. The Court explained that constructive dismissal requires the examination and evaluation of evidence on record, making it a question of fact, generally not reviewable in a Rule 45 petition absent exceptional circumstances. It found none applicable.

Even under the labor-case approach, the Court held that the CA correctly assessed whether the labor tribunals gravely abused their discretion. It reiterated that when labor tribunals’ rulings are supported by substantial evidence, grave abuse of discretion cannot be imputed.

Legal Basis for Affirmance: Substantial Evidence on Non-Constructive Dismissal

The Court held that the labor tribunals consistently found that respondent repeatedly sent RTWOs to Suazo’s provided address, and that the RTWOs were returned unserved because Suazo had moved out without leaving a forwarding address. It approved the LA’s view that the unsuccessful delivery of the two most recent RTWOs could not be held against respondent because Suazo, not respondent, had moved out and failed to provide forwarding information. The Court found Suazo’s argument unavailing because it found substantial support in the tracking receipts from the Philippine Postal Corporation, showing that two RTWOs were undelivered because the addressee had moved out.

The Court likewise sustained the NLRC’s reduction of monetary awards based on substantial evidence. It noted the NLRC’s finding that respondent had already paid Suazo his thirteenth month pay and service incentive leave pay for 2019 to 2021, and it agreed that the CA properly deferred to the labor tribunal’s factual determinations given the evidentiary support. Citing governing doctrine, it reaffirmed that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies such as the NLRC receive respect when supported by substantial evidence.

Professional Responsibility: Misquotation and Misrepresentation of Jurisprudence

Beyond the merits, the Court addressed Suazo’s counsel’s conduct in citing jurisprudence. It noted that Suazo, through his counsel Atty. Rodolfo R. Ranion (Atty. Ranion), cited what appeared to be 18 Court decisions. The Court analyzed the supposed decisions and their cited G.R. numbers and alleged promulgation dates as Suazo presented them. It found that several decisions either did not exist, carried G.R. numbers for unrelated cases, had erroneous promulgation dates, involved matters unrelated to the issues, or contained doctrines contrary to Suazo’s a