RAVENGAR G. IBON, PETITIONER, VS. GENGHIS KHAN SECURITY SERVICES AND/OR MARIETTA VALLESPIN, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 221085
June 19, 2017
Facts:
Ravengar G. Ibon (petitioner) was employed as a security guard by Genghis Khan Security Services (respondent) sometime in June 2008. He was initially assigned to a certain Mr. Solis in New Manila, Quezon City. In July 2008, he was transferred to the 5th Avenue Condominium in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City, in September 2008 and was posted there until May 2009.
In June 2009, petitioner was transferred to the Aspen Tower Condominium until his last duty on October 4, 2010. Thereafter, respondent promised to provide him a new assignment, which, however, did not happen.
On May 10, 2011, petitioner filed a Complaint against respondent for illegal dismissal, with claims for underpayment of wages, holiday and rest day premiums, service incentive leave pay, non-payment of separation pay, and reimbursement of illegal deductions. He alleged that he was no longer assigned to a new post after his last duty on October 4, 2010; that he was merely receiving a daily salary of P384.00; and that in the course of his employment, respondent would deduct P200.00 per month as cash bond from September 2008 until September 2010.
For his part, respondent denied that petitioner was placed on a floating status for more than six (6) months. It claimed that he was suspended on October 4, 2010 for sleeping on the job. Respondent added that petitioner was endorsed to another client for re-assignment, which the latter refused because his license was due for renewal. Since then, petitioner failed to report for work.
Sometime in November 2010, petitioner went to respondent's office to claim his 13th month pay, but the same was not given to him because it was not yet due. Respondent then received a call from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) regarding petitioner's claim for 13th month pay, which was later on settled during the proceedings before the DOLE. It then sent letters to petitioner requiring him to report for work, but he did not show up. Hence, respondent was surprised to receive summons regarding the complaint for illegal dismissal.
In its November 29, 2011 Decision, the Labor Arbiter (LA) declared petitioner to have been constructively dismissed. Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the NLRC.
In its April 24, 2012 Decision, the NLRC reversed and set aside the decision of the LA.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but his motion was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution dated May 22, 2012.
Undaunted, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.
In its assailed Decision, dated July 3, 2015, the CA affirmed the NLRC finding that petitioner was not constructively dismissed.
Issues:
Whether or not the court of appeals gravely erred in affirming the ruling of the nlrc that the petitioner was not illegally dismissed from employment.
Held:
Petitioner was last deployed on October 4, 2010. Thus, it was incumbent upon respondent to show that he was redeployed within six (6) months from the said date. Otherwise, petitioner would be deemed to have been constructively dismissed.
A perusal of the records, however, reveals that aside from respondent's bare assertions that petitioner was suspended, which the latter had denied, there was no evidence of the imposition of said penalty.
Respondent could not rely on its letter requiring petitioner to report back to work to refute a finding of constructive dismissal. The letters, dated November 5, 2010 and February 3, 2011, which were supposedly sent to petitioner merely requested him to report back to work and to explain why he failed to report to the office after inquiring about his posting status. More importantly, there was no proof that petitioner had received the letters.
In Tatel v. JLFP Investigation (JFLP Investigation), the Court initially found that the security guard was constructively dismissed notwithstanding the employer's letter ordering him to report back to work. It expounded that in spite of the report-to-work order, the security guard was still constructively dismissed because he was not given another detail or assignment. On motion for reconsideration, however, the Court reversed its ruling after it was shown that the security guard was in fact assigned to a specific client, but the latter refused the same and opted to wait for another posting.
A holistic analysis of the Court's disposition in JFLP Investigation reveals that: [1] an employer must assign the security guard to another posting within six (6) months from his last deployment, otherwise, he would be considered constructively dismissed; and [2] the security guard must be assigned to a specific or particular client. A general return-to-work order does not suffice.
In Exocet Security and Allied Services Corporation v. Serrano (Exocet Security), the Court absolved the employer even if the security guard was on a floating status for more than six (6) months because the latter refused the reassignment to another client.
In the controversy now before the Court, there is no question that the security guard, Serrano, was placed on floating status after his relief from his post as a VIP security by his security agency's client. Yet, there is no showing that his security agency, petitioner Exocet, acted in bad faith when it placed Serrano on such floating status. What is more, the present case is not a situation where Exocet did not recall Serrano to work within the six-month period as required by law and jurisprudence. Exocet did, in fact, make an offer to Serrano to go back to work.
Clearly, Serrano's lack of assignment for more than six months cannot be attributed to petitioner Exocet. On the contrary, records show that, as early as September 2006, or one month after Serrano was relieved as a VIP security, Exocet had already offered Serrano a position in the general security service because there were no available clients requiring positions for VIP security. Notably, even though the new assignment does not involve a demotion in rank or diminution in salary, pay, or benefits, Serrano declined the position because it was not the post that suited his preference, as he insisted on being a VIP Security.
Thus, it is manifestly unfair and unacceptable to immediately declare the mere lapse of the six-month period of floating status as a case of constructive dismissal, without looking into the peculiar circumstances that resulted in the security guard's failure to assume another post. This is especially true in the present case where the security guard's own refusal to accept a non-VIP detail was the reason that he was not given an assignment within the six-month period. The security agency, Exocet, should not then be held liable.
Applying the foregoing to the present controversy, respondent should have deployed petitioner to a specific client within six (6) months from his last assignment. The correspondences allegedly sent to petitioner merely required him to explain why he did not report to work. He was never assigned to a particular client. Thus, even if petitioner actually received the letters of respondent, he was still constructively dismissed because none of these letters indicated his reassignment to another client. Unlike in Ecoxet Security and JFLP Investigation, respondent is guilty of constructive dismissal because it never attempted to redeploy petitioner to a definite assignment or security detail.
Further, petitioner's refusal to accept the offer of reinstatement could not have the effect of validating an otherwise constructive dismissal considering that the same was made only after petitioner had filed a case for illegal dismissal. Further, at the time the offer for reinstatement was made, petitioner's constructive dismissal had long been consummated. Such belated gesture does not absolve respondent from the consequences of petitioner's dismissal.
Wherefore, the July 3, 2015 Decision and October 13, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 125948 are reversed and set aside.
No comments:
Post a Comment