Vicente C. Tatel vs. JLFP Investigation Security Agency, Inc., Jose Luis F. Pamintuan, and Paolo C. Turno

Posted Feb 25, 2015

By Anonymous

5 min read

Case Title and Citation

Vicente C. Tatel, petitioner, vs. JLFP Investigation Security Agency, Inc., Jose Luis F. Pamintuan, and Paolo C. Turno, respondents.
G.R. No. 206942, February 25, 2015
Supreme Court - First Division
Ponente: Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe

Facts

On March 14, 1998, JLFP Investigation Security Agency, Inc. (JLFP) hired Vicente C. Tatel as a security guard. He alleged his last posting was at BaggerWerken Decloedt En Zoon (BaggerWerken), Port Area, Manila. He claimed twelve-hour workdays every day and receipt of ₱12,400.00 monthly salary.
On October 14, 2009, Tatel filed an underpayment complaint against JLFP and officers for unpaid wages, benefits, 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees.
On October 24, 2009, Tatel was placed on “floating status.” After six months without assignments, on May 4, 2010 he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal seeking reinstatement, backwages, refund of a cash bond (₱25,400.00), attorney’s fees and other claims.
Respondents asserted that Tatel was removed from his post on August 24, 2009 for infractions, then reassigned to SKI from September 16 to October 12, 2009, and to IPVG from October 21 to 23, 2009, and that he later abandoned his work for failing to heed a November 26, 2009 memorandum to report for reassignment.
Tatel admitted receipt of the November 26, 2009 memorandum on December 11, 2009 but stated he was only told to “wait for possible posting” and that he repeatedly sought reassignment to no avail.
Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint on September 20, 2010 due to inconsistent sworn statements by Tatel regarding dates and salary.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA on February 9, 2011, finding illegal dismissal (constructive) and awarding reinstatement, backwages, underpaid wages for three years, refund of cash bond, and attorney’s fees; alternatively, separation pay if reinstatement not viable.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC on November 14, 2012, reinstating the LA decision and finding abandonment and that inconsistencies undermined Tatel’s claim; its denial of reconsideration was resolved April 22, 2013.
The Supreme Court granted review on certiorari.

Issues

Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding petitioner Vicente C. Tatel to have been illegally dismissed?

Ruling

Yes - The Court of Appeals erred; the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion and correctly found that petitioner was constructively dismissed after being on “floating status” for more than six months.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

Rule 45 ordinarily limits this Court to questions of law, but exceptions permit review of factual findings when the CA’s findings conflict with those of the NLRC and LA; the Court applied the New City Builders exceptions (including manifestly mistaken inferences, grave abuse, and conflicting findings) to inspect the evidence.
The Court examined the nature of “floating status” in security agencies: temporary off-detail is not dismissal if it lasts six months or less; beyond six months it may constitute constructive dismissal (citing Superstar Security Agency, Inc. v. NLRC; Salvaloza v. NLRC).
Facts showed Tatel last served at IPVG on October 23, 2009 and was placed on floating status on October 24, 2009. No subsequent reassignment was proved despite respondents’ November 26, 2009 memorandum, which Tatel acknowledged receiving and for which he explained he repeatedly sought reassignment.
Constructive dismissal exists where employer conduct renders continued employment unreasonable or impossible; here the off-detail period exceeded six months, satisfying the test for constructive dismissal.
Respondents bore the burden to establish abandonment (elements: failure to report and clear intent to sever employment manifested by overt acts). The Court found respondents did not prove deliberate refusal to resume employment; filing of the illegal dismissal complaint evidenced Tatel’s desire to return to work.
Inconsistent statements by petitioner regarding employment dates and salary were credibly explained (hiring date vs. regularization date; salary periodicity) and did not negate the constructive dismissal finding.
Consequently, CA’s reversal was a legal error: NLRC’s conclusion of illegal (constructive) dismissal was supported by evidence and proper application of law.
Because reinstatement was no longer feasible (strained relations and petitioner employed elsewhere), separation pay in lieu of reinstatement was appropriate. The Court deferred detailed computation of monetary awards to the NLRC.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

Temporary “floating status” or “off-detail” for security guards is not dismissal if it lasts six months or less; exceeding six months may amount to constructive dismissal.
Constructive dismissal arises when employer actions render continued employment impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely.
To prove abandonment, the employer must show (a) failure to report for work or absence without valid reason, and (b) a clear intention to sever the employment relationship manifested by overt acts; the employer bears the burden of proof.
Exceptions to Rule 45 permit factual review by the Supreme Court when appellate findings conflict among tribunals or are premised on manifest errors of fact or law.

Disposition

The petition is GRANTED.
The Decision dated November 14, 2012 and Resolution dated April 22, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 119997) are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Decision dated February 9, 2011 and Resolution dated March 31, 2011 of the National Labor Relations Commission are REINSTATED with modification: back wages to be computed from petitioner’s constructive dismissal on October 24, 2009 until finality, computed at ₱12,400.00 per month. The remainder of the NLRC decision stands.
Reinstatement is awarded in principle, but because reinstatement is no longer feasible, separation pay is awarded in lieu of reinstatement. Computation of monetary awards is deferred to the NLRC.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

The ponente’s opinion was concurred in by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, and Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez.
No dissenting opinion was stated.

Significance / Notes

Clarifies the six-month rule for “floating status” in security agency employment: an off-detail exceeding six months can constitute constructive dismissal and warrant relief.
Reinforces employer’s evidentiary burden to prove abandonment; mere receipt of a memorandum is insufficient absent proof of overt acts showing intent to sever employment.
Affirms that inconsistencies in a complainant’s pleadings may be explained plausibly and do not automatically defeat claims of illegal or constructive dismissal.
Illustrates an instance where the Supreme Court reviewed factual findings due to conflicting conclusions among tribunals under recognized exceptions to Rule 45, thereby providing guidance on when such review is permissible.
Delegation to the NLRC for computation underscores tribunal expertise in calculating back wages, separation pay, and related monetary awards.

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.