'i&rpublic nf tlyr Jlyilippinrs

&upreme Qtnurt
aguin CIIity

SECOND DIVISION

EMERITUS SECURITY AND G.R. No. 204761

MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS, INC.,
Petitioner, Present:

CARPIO, J, Chairperson,
BRION,
-versus- DEL CASTILLO,
PEREZ, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.

JANRIE C. DAILIG, Promulgated:

Respondent. APR 11 /C-......J...II'fHf'w-.""'--

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESOLUTION

CARPIO,J.:

The Case

This petitiOn for review 1 assails the 25 May 2012 Decision 2 and
11 December 2012 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 111904. Affirming with modification the decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC), the Court of Appeals found respondent
Janrie C. Dailig (respondent) illegally dismissed by petitioner Emeritus
Security and Maintenance Systems, Inc. (petitioner) and ordered the
payment of separation pay, instead of reinstatement, and backwages.

The Facts

In August 2000, petitioner hired respondent as one of its security

guards. During his employment, respondent was assigned to petitioner's
va ious clients, the last of which was Panasonic in Calamba, Laguna starting
16 December 2004.
1
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2
Rollo, pp. 37-48. Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam with Associate Justices Normandie B.
Pizarro and Danton Q. Bueser concurring.
Id. at 49-51.
Resolution 1 G.R. No. 204761

On 10 December 2005, respondent was relieved from his

post.

On 27 January 2006, respondent filed a complaint for underpayment

of wages, non-payment of legal and special holiday pay, premium pay for
rest day and underpayment of ECOLA before the Department of Labor
and Employment, National Capital Region. The hearing officer
recommended the dismissal of the complaint since the claims were already
paid.

On 16 June 2006, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal

and payment of separation pay against petitioner before the Conciliation
and Mediation Center of the NLRC. On 14 July 2006, respondent filed
another complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries and non-
payment of full backwages before the NLRC.

Respondent claimed that on various dates in December 2005 and from

January to May 2006,4 he went to petitioner’s office to follow-up his next
assignment. After more than six months since his last assignment, still
respondent was not given a new assignment. Respondent argued that if an
employee is on floating status for more than six months, such employee is
deemed illegally dismissed.

Petitioner denied dismissing respondent. Petitioner admitted that it

relieved respondent from his last assignment on 10 December 2005;
however, petitioner required respondent to report to the head office within
48 hours from receipt of the order of relief. Respondent allegedly failed to
comply. Petitioner claimed that on 27 January 2006 it sent respondent a
notice to his last known address requiring him to report to the head office
within 72 hours from receipt of the said notice. Petitioner further alleged that
it had informed respondent that he had been absent without official leave
for the month of January 2006, and that his failure to report within 72 hours
from receipt of the notice would mean that he was no longer interested to
continue his employment.

Petitioner also claimed that there was no showing that respondent was
prevented from returning to his work and that it had consistently manifested
its willingness to reinstate him to his former position. In addition, the fact
that there was no termination letter sent to respondent purportedly proved
that respondent was not dismissed.

On 5 December 2007, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision,

disposing of the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, complainant is hereby declared to

have been illegally dismissed. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered
to reinstate complainant and to pay him backwages from

4
12, 16, 22 December 2005; 10, 30 January 2006; 15 February 2006; 16 March 2006; 11 April 2006; and 15
May 2006.
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 204761

the time his compensation was withheld by reason of his illegal dismissal
until actual reinstatement. His claim for underpayment is hereby denied
for lack of merit. The totality of complainant’s monetary award as
computed by the Computation and Examination Unit is hereby adopted as
integral part of this Decision.

SO ORDERED.5

The computation of the monetary award is as follows:

BACKWAGES from 12/10/05 TO

12/5/07

Basic Pay
P7,560.00/mo. x 23.86 mos. = P180,381.60
th
13 month pay
P180,381.60/12 = 15,031.80
SIL
Pay
P7,560/30 x 5 days x 23.86/12 = 2,505.30
TOTAL P197,918.706

Petitioner appealed before the NLRC, which dismissed the appeal for
lack of merit. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the NLRC
denied. The NLRC, however, pointed out that the computation of
respondent’s award of full backwages should be reckoned from 10 June
2006 and not 10 December 2005.

On appeal with the Court of Appeals, petitioner argued that there was
abandonment on respondent’s part when he refused to report for work
despite notice. Thus, there was no illegal dismissal to speak of.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of the Labor Arbiter and
the NLRC that respondent was illegally dismissed by petitioner. However,
the Court of Appeals set aside the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC’s
reinstatement order. Instead, the Court of Appeals ordered the payment of
separation pay, invoking the doctrine of strained relations between the
parties.

The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED.
The Decision and Resolution of the NLRC-First Division, dated October
21, 2008 and October 19, 2009, respectively, in NLRC Case No. RAB
IV- 07-23165-06-L NLRC LAC No. 03-000954-08, are AFFIRMED
with
MODIFICATION, in that, petitioner is ORDERED to pay private
respondent Janrie C. Dailig (a) separation pay in the amount equivalent to

5
Rollo, p. 40.
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 204761
6
Id.
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 204761

one (1) month pay for every year of service and (b) backwages, computed
from the time compensation was withheld from him when he was unjustly
terminated, up to the time of payment thereof. For this purpose, the
records of this case are hereby REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter
for proper computation of said awards in view of this Decision. Costs
against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.7

The Issues

The issues are (1) whether respondent was illegally dismissed by

respondent and (2) if he was, whether respondent is entitled to separation
pay, instead of reinstatement.

The Ruling of the Court

The Court affirms the finding of illegal dismissal of the Labor Arbiter,
NLRC, and Court of Appeals. However, the Court sets aside the Court of
Appeals’ award of separation pay in favor of respondent, and reinstates the
Labor Arbiter’s reinstatement order.

On whether respondent was illegally dismissed

Petitioner admits relieving respondent from his post as security guard

on 10 December 2005. There is also no dispute that respondent remained on
floating status at the time he filed his complaint for illegal dismissal on 16
June 2006. In other words, respondent was on floating status from 10
December 2005 to 16 June 2006 or more than six months. Petitioner’s
allegation of sending respondent a notice sometime in January 2006,
requiring him to report for work, is unsubstantiated, and thus, self-serving.

The Court agrees with the ruling of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC and
Court of Appeals that a floating status of a security guard, such as
respondent, for more than six months constitutes constructive dismissal.
In Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Valderama,8 the Court
held:

x x x the temporary inactivity or “floating status” of security guards

should continue only for six months. Otherwise, the security agency
concerned could be liable for constructive dismissal. The failure of
petitioner to give respondent a work assignment beyond the reasonable
six-month period makes it liable for constructive dismissal. x x x.9

7
Id. at 47.
8
G.R. No. 186614, 23 February 2011, 644 SCRA 299, 310-311.
9
Id. See People’s Security, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 96451, 8 September
1993, 226 SCRA 146, 152-153; Mobile Protective & Detective Agency v. Ompad, G.R. No. 159195,
9 May
2005, 458 SCRA 308, 323.
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 204761

Further, the Court notes that the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of
Appeals unanimously found that respondent was illegally dismissed by
petitioner. Factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, if
supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by
this Court, more so when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter.10
Such factual findings are given more weight when the same are affirmed
by the Court of Appeals.11 The Court finds no reason to depart from the
foregoing rule.

On whether respondent is entitled to separation pay

Article 279 of the Labor Code of the Philippines mandates the

reinstatement of an illegally dismissed employee, to wit:

Security of Tenure. - x x x An employee who is unjustly

dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and to his full back wages, inclusive of
allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent
computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up
to the time of his actual reinstatement.

Thus, reinstatement is the general rule, while the award of separation pay is
the exception. The circumstances warranting the grant of separation pay, in
lieu of reinstatement, are laid down by the Court in Globe-Mackay Cable
and Radio Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,12 thus:

Over time, the following reasons have been advanced by the Court
for denying reinstatement under the facts of the case and the law
applicable thereto; that reinstatement can no longer be effected in view
of the long passage of time (22 years of litigation) or because of the
realities of the situation; or that it would be ‘inimical to the employer’s
interest;’ or that reinstatement may no longer be feasible; or, that it will
not serve the best interests of the parties involved; or that the company
would be prejudiced by the workers’ continued employment; or that it will
not serve any prudent purpose as when supervening facts have transpired
which make execution on that score unjust or inequitable or, to an
increasing extent, due to the resultant atmosphere of ‘antipathy and
antagonism’ or ‘strained relations’ or ‘irretrievable estrangement’ between
the employer and the employee.

In this case, petitioner claims that it complied with the reinstatement

order of the Labor Arbiter. On 23 January 2008, petitioner sent respondent a
notice informing him of the Labor Arbiter’s decision to reinstate him.
Accordingly, in February 2008, respondent was assigned by petitioner to
Canlubang Sugar Estate, Inc. in Canlubang, Laguna, and to various posts

10
Bank of Lubao, Inc. v. Manabat, G.R. No. 188722, 1 February 2012, 664 SCRA 772, 779.
11
Id.
12
G.R. No. 82511, 3 March 1992, 206 SCRA 701, 709-710.
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 204761

thereafter. At the time of the filing of the petition, respondent was assigned
by petitioner to MD Distripark Manila, Inc. in Bifian, Laguna.

Respondent admits receiving a reinstatement notice from petitioner.

Thereafter, respondent was assigned to one of petitioner's clients. However,
respondent points out that he was not reinstated by petitioner Emeritus
Security and Maintenance Systems, Inc. but was employed by another
company, Emme Security and Maintenance Systems, Inc. (Emme). Thus,
according to respondent, he was not reinstated at all.

Petitioner counters that Emeritus and Emme are sister companies with
the same Board of Directors and officers, arguing that Emeritus and Emme
are in effect one and the same corporation.

Considering petitioner's undisputed claim that Emeritus and Emme

are· one and the same, there is no basis in respondent's allegation that he was
not reinstated to his previous employment. Besides, respondent assails the
corporate personalities of Emeritus and Emme only in his Comment filed
before this Court. Further, respondent did not appeal the Labor Arbiter's
reinstatement order.

Contrary to the Court of Appeals' ruling, there is nothing in the

records showing any strained relations between the parties to warrant the
award of s paration pay. There is neither allegation nor proof that such
animosity existed between petitioner and respondent. In fact, petitioner
complied with the Labor Arbiter's reinstatement order.

Considering that ( 1) petitioner reinstated respondent in compliance

with the Labor Arbiter's decision, and (2) there is no ground, particularly
strained relations between the parties, to justify the grant of separation pay,
the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the payment thereof, in lieu of
reinstatement.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and REINSTATES

the 5 December 2007 Decision of the Labor Arbiter. However, the
backwages should be computed from 10 June 2006 when respondent was
illegally dismissed up to the time he was reinstated in February 2008.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Resolution 7 G.R. No. 204761

WE CONCUR:

Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO EREZ

Associate Justice

ESTELA E BERNABE
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court's Division.

ANTONIOT.C
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Resolution 8 G.R. No. 204761

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certifY that the conclusions in the
above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice