Title
Symex Security Services, Inc. vs. Rivera, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 202613
Decision Date
Nov 8, 2017
Security guards filed a complaint for unpaid wages and benefits; employer retaliated by demanding complaint withdrawal for reassignment, leading to illegal dismissal. Court upheld claims, awarded damages, but absolved president from liability.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 202613)

Applicable Law and Legal Framework

The matter is governed under the 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable because the decision date is after 1990), the Labor Code (as cited, including provisions on separation pay and termination), Section 31 of the Corporation Code on officer liability, and established jurisprudential doctrines on illegal dismissal, abandonment, management prerogative, burden of proof in labor claims, strained relations, presumptions arising from failure to produce employer records, and piercing the corporate veil. Relevant precedents cited include A’Prime Security Services, Exocet Security, Machica, Tan Brothers, Grandteq, Guillermo v. Uson, and others referenced in the record.

Procedural History

Respondents filed before the Labor Arbiter (LA) claims for underpayment/nonpayment (wages, overtime, holiday premium, rest day premium, service incentive leave pay, clothing allowance, 13th month pay), illegal deductions (cash bond, firearm bond and repair), and later added a claim for illegal dismissal. The LA dismissed the illegal dismissal claim but awarded proportionate 13th month pay to each respondent (P1,543.75 each). The NLRC reversed, finding illegal dismissal and awarding separation pay, full backwages, underpaid wages and benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC. Petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court followed.

Facts Regarding Employment, Relief and Alleged Dismissal

Respondents were security guards employed since May 1999, assigned to Guevent; duty hours were Monday–Saturday, 6:00 AM–6:00 PM (12-hour duty). Pay history: P198/day (Jan 20–Mar 2001) and P250/day (Apr 2001–Mar 2003). Respondents alleged nonpayment of overtime, rest day and holiday premiums, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and illegal deductions. After filing money claims with the LA, respondents were summoned to Symex head office (March 14, 2003), told they were relieved due to client reduction and to report March 17 for reassignment. On March 17, 2003, they were told reassignment would be granted only if they withdrew their LA complaint; they refused and were told they were dismissed. They amended their LA complaint to allege illegal dismissal on March 18, 2003.

Labor Arbiter’s Findings

The LA found respondents were merely relieved from post (floating status) rather than dismissed, did not accept the unsigned purported affidavit of desistance, and dismissed the illegal dismissal claim. The LA nonetheless awarded proportionate 13th month pay based on respondents’ pay rate and the period worked up to March 14, 2003.

NLRC Findings and Awards

The NLRC reversed the LA and declared respondents illegally dismissed. It held the employer bore the burden to prove a valid cause for termination and had failed to produce a written reassignment order or show abandonment. Relying on precedent (A’Prime), it found respondents’ immediate amendment of their complaint inconsistent with abandonment. The NLRC awarded, among other items: separation pay (one month per year of service) for each respondent, full backwages, underpaid wages and benefits (including service incentive leave and 13th month pay), moral damages (P10,000 each), exemplary damages (P10,000 each), and ten percent attorney’s fees; other claims dismissed for lack of basis.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA affirmed the NLRC. It concluded the employer used its prerogative to reassign as leverage to coerce withdrawal of the labor complaint, which evidenced bad faith. The CA found the NLRC properly resolved respondents’ money claims, noting that once employees set out their benefits with particularity, the employer must prove payment. The CA also upheld awards for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Reconsideration was denied.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered whether: (a) the CA correctly found no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in declaring illegal dismissal; (b) petitioners are liable for backwages, service incentive leave, 13th month pay, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees; and (c) Rafael Y. Arcega should be held solidarily liable with Symex for the monetary awards.

Standard for Certiorari and Grave Abuse of Discretion

The Court reiterated that certiorari requires showing grave abuse of discretion — a capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of judgment. In labor cases, grave abuse exists when findings lack substantial evidence. The Court limited its review to questions of law and grave abuse of discretion and generally accords finality to factual findings of labor tribunals and the CA, absent grave abuse.

Analysis on Whether Respondents Were Dismissed

The Court found substantial evidence supports the NLRC and CA findings of dismissal. Respondents testified they were told their services would not be reinstated unless they withdrew their complaint and were provided a sample affidavit of desistance. The Court emphasized that the employee who alleges dismissal must prove it by clear, positive and convincing evidence when the employer denies dismissal; here, respondents’ sworn narrations, documentary sample affidavit of desistance, and circumstantial context were found convincing. Petitioners failed to present written reassignment orders, attendance logs, or the company roll to rebut the dismissal claim, which the Court noted as a critical omission.

Burden of Proof on Monetary Claims and Employer’s Failure to Produce Records

The Court affirmed the principle that when an employee specifies wage-related claims with particularity (position papers, pay slips, affidavits), the employer who pleads payment must prove it. The employer’s failure to produce records in its possession gives rise to a presumption that such evidence would be unfavorable to it. Given petitioners’ failure to submit pertinent company records, respondents’ monetary claims were entitled to deference and supportive awards.

Abandonment and Floating Status Considerations

The Court rejected the employer’s contention that respondents abandoned work or refused reassignment. It reiterated that abandonment requires both failure to report without valid reason and clear intent to sever the employment relationship, manifested by overt acts. Immediate filing and amendment of the complaint seeking reinstatement undermines any inference of abandonment. The Court noted that while management prerogative allows transfer or reassignment, such prerogative must be exercised in good faith and not as punishment or discrimination; here, reassignment was used as leverage, evidencing bad faith.

Strained Relations and Separation Pay vs. Reinstatement

The Court found that strained relations doctrine applies as a factual finding by the NLRC and CA: the protracted controvers

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms