The Supreme Court has denied the petition filed by the heirs of security guard Allan against Alcatraz Security & Investigation Agency, Inc. (ASIAI) and its President/General Manager Ernesto Catungal, affirming the Court of Appeals (CA) ruling that Allan was neither constructively nor illegally dismissed from employment. The Third Division, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Filomena D. Singh, ruled that there was insufficient proof of dismissal and that no monetary awards — including backwages, separation pay, damages, and attorney's fees — could be granted.
The Case
ASIAI is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of security services. Allan began his employment with ASIAI as a security guard on March 10, 2009 and was assigned to different client locations, with his final posting at Bonifacio Heights in Taguig City.
In January 2018, Allan suffered a mild stroke and lost consciousness while on duty, leading to his confinement in a hospital. Upon discharge, his physician recommended rest, and he took a sick leave until March 1, 2018. He returned to work on March 2, 2018, but ASIAI did not give him an assignment. Allan filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims, damages, and attorney's fees against ASIAI on July 24, 2018.
Allan argued he was constructively dismissed due to a prolonged floating status. He also claimed underpayment of wages and non-payment of overtime, 13th month pay, service incentive leave, holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day premium, separation pay, and a cash bond refund.
ASIAI denied dismissal, saying it offered Allan an assignment at Monarch Parksuites Condominium upon his return on March 2, 2018, chosen for its indoor nature and proximity to his residence given his health condition. Allan refused, insisting on reassignment to Bonifacio Heights. ASIAI required a cardiologist's medical certificate before assigning him there. Despite repeated notices, Allan refused to return to work.
The Issue
The central question before the Court was whether Allan was constructively or illegally dismissed by ASIAI, and whether he was entitled to the monetary claims he sought.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA. The Court stated: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals Decision, dated June 30, 2023, and the Resolution, dated February 29, 2024, in CA-G.R. SP No. 169657, are AFFIRMED."
The Court found that "there is dearth of proof that Allan was dismissed from employment" and that "his claim of illegal dismissal cannot be sustained." At the same time, the Court agreed that Allan did not commit abandonment, as that would be inconsistent with his filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Court upheld the CA's ruling that the parties should bear their own losses, citing Chong Guan Trading v. NLRC and Radar Security & Watchman Agency, Inc. v. Castro, which hold that "in a case where the employee's failure to work was occasioned neither by his abandonment nor by a termination, the burden of economic loss is not rightfully shifted to the employer; each party must bear his own loss."
The Court declared: "in labor cases, where there is neither termination nor abandonment involved, there is no occasion to grant separation pay and backwages, nor to allow collection of any other monetary claims absent evidence to substantiate the same."
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 272859
- Employment start date: March 10, 2009
- Stroke and hospitalization: January 2018
- Sick leave end / return to work: March 2, 2018
- Complaint filed: July 24, 2018
- ASIAI return-to-work orders: August 16 and 29, 2018
- Labor Arbiter Decision: March 19, 2019
- NLRC Decision: July 25, 2019
- NLRC Resolution on reconsideration: September 22, 2020
- CA Decision: June 30, 2023
- CA Resolution: February 29, 2024
The Court's Reasoning
The Court reviewed the CA decision to determine whether the CA correctly found the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision. It noted that grave abuse of discretion exists when findings and conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence. The Court ultimately affirmed the CA's ruling that the NLRC did not commit any abuse of discretion, much less grave, when it reversed the Labor Arbiter's finding of illegal dismissal.
The Court found that ASIAI had offered Allan a reassignment to Monarch Parksuites Condominium and had issued return-to-work orders. Allan's refusal to accept the offered assignment and his failure to submit the required medical certificate, the Court found, meant that his failure to work was not due to the employer's fault. Because there was neither a dismissal nor an abandonment, no separation pay, backwages, or other monetary awards had legal basis. The Court also noted that the payroll sheets submitted by ASIAI, which Allan did not deny, showed he had been paid minimum wage, ECOLA, overtime pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay.
The Court added that "while the Court remains steadfast in its constitutional duty to protect labor, such protection cannot be applied in a manner that unduly penalizes employers who have not been remiss in their obligations towards their employees."
Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines, G.R. No. 272859, Third Division, penned by Associate Justice Filomena D. Singh.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.