Ponente: Del Castillo, J.
FACTS:
·
In 1989, Peak Ventures (owner/operator of El
Tigre) hired Nestor Villareal as security guard. In July 2002, Villareal was
relieved from duty without any apparent reason. He was later informed by the
management that he would no longer be given any assignment because of his age.
At that time, he was 42. His repeated requests for a new posting during the
months of June and July of 2002 were likewise declined.
·
Due to his prolonged lack of assignment and
dwindling resources, Villareal was constrained to claim his security bond
deposits worth P12,700 from Peak Ventures. However, he was advised to first
tender a letter of resignation before the same could be released to him. Out of
sheer necessity, Villareal submitted a letter of resignation.
·
In his resignation letter, he wrote that he
was constrained to resign effective July 31, 2002 since he cannot expect to be
given any assignment for another one and a half months and that he can no
longer afford the fare going to his employer's office. Villareal alleged that
the tenor of his resignation letter was not acceptable to Peak Ventures, and
was required to submit another one stating that his resignation is voluntary.
·
Villareal later filed a complaint before the
Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement, backwages,
13th month pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, moral and exemplary
damages and attorney’s fees against his employer.
·
Villareal's arguments: He was relieved from
duty and put on floating status for no valid and authorized cause. He said the
security services contract between his employer and East Greenhills Village
where he was assigned was still effective at the time he was relieved from his
duty. He averred that the dire financial strait brought about by his
unjustified relief from duty had made it unbearable for him to continue his
employment with Peak Venture. Further, his illegal dismissal was effected
without due process.
·
Villareal's employers denied the charge and
asserted that it was Villareal who voluntarily severed his employment with them
as shown by: 1) his handwritten letter of resignation, 2) a Talaan ng
Pakikipanayam sa Pagbibitiw duly accomplished by Villareal which negates any
act of coercion on petitioners’ part, and 3) a notarized Clearance showing
Villareal’s receipt of his security deposits amounting to P12,700.00 and waiver
of all his claims against petitioners.
·
Labor Arbiter: There was no valid and
effective resignation on the part of Villareal, who was actually constructively
dismissed, which dismissal was carried out without due process of law. The LA
ordered Peak Ventures/El Tigre to reinstate Villareal to his former position
without loss of seniority rights and other privileges. They were also ordered
to pay Villareal's backwages for the period from July 3, 2002 up to July 4,
2003, in the amount of P100,800.00, subject to further adjustment or
computation up to the reinstatement of [Villareal] or the finality of this
decision, as the case may be.
·
NLRC: LA ruling affirmed.
·
Villareal died before the CA can resolve the
issue. He was later substituted by his heirs.
·
In 2008, the CA affirmed the NLRC ruling. The
CA noted that Peak Ventures failed to afford Villareal substantive and
procedural due process when he was relieved from duty and also when he was not
given a new post. And as a result of the unjustified relief and non-posting,
his situation became unbearable, leaving him with no choice but to forego
employment. To the CA, this is a clear case of constructive dismissal. On the other
hand, the evidence offered by Peak Ventures did not suffice to support the
alleged voluntariness of Villareal’s resignation.
·
According to the CA, the amount of backwages
shall be computed from the time Villareal was separated from the company, that
is July 3, 2002 up to the finality of this Decision in 2008, as [Villareal]
already died. Moreover, since reinstatement is now impossible, Peak Ventures
shall give separation pay of one month pay for every year of service to
[Villareal] in lieu of reinstatement.
·
Peak Ventures filed a motion for
reconsideration, arguing that:
(a) the backwages should be computed from the
time of Villareal’s relief from duty on May 14, 2002 until his actual
reinstatement and not until the finality of the Decision. And since Villareal
was actually reinstated and has rendered duty from November 1, 2003 to March
16, 2004, he is only entitled to backwages computed up to his actual
reinstatement on November 1, 2003; and
(b) the separation pay should be computedat
1/2 month pay for every year of service and not one month pay for every year of
service as awarded by the CA.
·
The motion for reconsideration was denied by
the CA. Hence, the instant petition.
RULING:
Whether
Villareal was illegally dismissed. – YES.
·
Villareal was constructively and illegally
dismissed. When Villareal was relieved from duty, he was placed on floating
status. A floating status requires the dire exigency of the employer’s bona
fide suspension of operation, business or undertaking. It takes place when the
security agency’s clients decide not to renew their contracts with the agency x
x x and also in instances where contracts for security services stipulate that
the client may request the agency for the replacement of the guards assigned to
it x x x. In the latter case, the employer should prove that there are no posts
available to which the employee temporarily out of work can be assigned.
·
Contrary to the assertion of Peak Ventures,
there was no valid and effective resignation on the part of Villareal. The
Court affirmed the LA's findings that he was constructively dismissed and that his dismissal was carried out
without due process of law. There is constructive dismissal when an act of clear
discrimination, insensitivity or disdain on the part of the employer has become
so unbearable as to leave anemployee with no choice but to forego continued
employment. "Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of
work because continued employmentis rendered impossible, unreasonable or
unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion inrank and a diminution in
pay." Moreover, Villareal’s immediate filing of a Complaint for illegal
dismissal to ask for reinstatement negates the fact of voluntary resignation.
·
Peak Ventures/El Tigre failed to discharge the
burden of proving that there were no other posts available for Villareal after
his recall from his last assignment. Worse, no sufficient reason was given for
his relief and continued denial of a new assignment. And because of the dire financial
straits brought about by these unjustified acts by his employer, Villareal was
forced to resign and execute documents in a manner as directed by his employer
in order to claim his security bond deposits..
Whether
the computation of backwages should only be from May 2002 up to November 2003,
and not up to 2008 when the CA's decision became final. – YES.
·
Backwages are granted on grounds of equity for
earnings lost by an employee due to his illegal dismissal.Villareal’s backwages
must be computed from the time of his unjustified relief from duty up to his
actual reinstatement.
·
Peak Ventures/El Tigre were able to show
evidence that would prove that Villareal was in fact reinstated in November
2003. These substantial pieces of evidence of Villareal’s actual reinstatement
were not disputed by Villareal (or his heirs).
·
Given the foregoing, the award of full
backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary
equivalent, shall be computed from the time Villareal was unjustly relieved
from duty on May 14, 2002 up to his actual reinstatement on November 8, 2003.
Whether Villareal is entitled to separation
pay. – NO.
·
Separation pay is intended to provide the
employee money during the period in which he will be looking for another
employment. In this case, though, the award of separation pay must be deleted
because separation pay is only granted as an alternative to reinstatement. It's
one or the other; it cannot be both. And since Villareal was reinstated in
2003, there is no longer any reason to award him separation pay.