SPECTRUM SECURITY SERVICES, INC. v. GRAVE

SPECTRUM SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Petitioner VS. DAVID GRAVE, ARIEL V. AROA, TOMASINO R. DE CHAVEZ, JR., LUCITO P. SAMARHA, SAIDOMAR M. MAROHOM, LITO V. MAHILOM and OLIVER N. MARTIN, Respondents
G.R. No. 196650
June 7, 2017


FACTS:

The petitioner seeks the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) where the petition was dismissed for certiorari and affirmed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) finding the petitioner liable for the illegal dismissal of the respondent security guards.

The petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of providing security services where the respondents are employed at the premises of Ibiden Philippines Incorporated (Ibiden) located in the First Philippine Industrial Park in Sto.Tomas, Batangas. The controversy started when the petitioner implemented an action plan as part of its operational and manpower supervision enhancement program geared towards the gradual replacement of security guards at Ibiden. The respondents in July and August 2008 were advised to report to each head office in order to update their documents for reassignment. However, the respondents filed a complaint against the petitioner for constructive dismissal in Regional Arbitration Branch No. IV of the NLRC. Consequently, the decision of the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint since there is no evidence to substantiate the respondents claim. The aggrieved respondents appealed to the NLRC where the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal and ordered the petitioner to reinstate the respondents with back wages. Moreover, the petitioner appealed again to the Court of Appeals (CA) contending the NLRC gravely abused its discretion but the CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC.


ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the petitioner was guilty of illegally dismissing the respondents.


HELD:

Yes. The Court of Appeals (CA) erred in finding that the petitioner was guilty of illegally dismissing the respondents despite the facts that the totality of the circumstances negated such findings. The contention of the CA that the petitioner’s failure to provide the reassignment for new post for the respondents during the proceedings exceeded the reasonable six-month period was baseless. On the contrary, the Labor Arbiter found that such allegations were unsupported by any factual foundation because there was no evidence showing that they had been dismissed. The complaint for the illegal dismissal was even prematurely filed on August 14, 2008 because the notices were sent to each of them only in the period from July 3, 2008 to August 3, 2008. The six-month period had not yet lapsed, since the position paper submitted by the respondent to NLRC was only received by the NLRC on December 11, 2008. The end of the six-month period from supposed termination (i.e. July and August 2008) would only be in January or February 2009.
Moreover, the respondents had actually abandoned their employment and had severed their employment relationship with the petitioner themselves. Despite of the notification to appear before the petitioner head office to update their documents.

Furthermore, the CA erred in holding the petitioner guilty of providing the respondents with new assignments during the pendency of the proceedings. Hence, the Supreme Court reverses and set aside the decision of the CA and reinstate the decision of the Labor Arbiter dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal.