Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=45841:138379&amp;catid=1459&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:28:12+00:00

Document:
PLACIDO O. URBANES, JR., operating under the name and style of Catalina Security Agency, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and JERRY G. RILLES, Respondents.
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated February 11, 1999, and the resolution2 dated April 22, 1999, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Jerry Rilles started working as a security guard in petitioner's agency on March 29, 1984. On June 24, 1994, the agency's contract with the Social Security System (SSS) in Buendia, Makati, where he was assigned, expired. He then reported to petitioner's office on several occasions for a new assignment, to no avail.
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises being considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondents to pay the complainant the total sum of P26,076.85, as separation pay and refund of his cash bond, plus ten percent (10%) thereof as attorney's fees.
All other claims of the complainant are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
This Arbitration Branch is inclined to uphold the complainant in his charge of illegal dismissal. While it is true that complainant was validly relieved from his post at the SSS Makati, it is still the duty of the respondents to provide a reassignment to the complainant considering that his relief from his last post does not constitute a severance of employer-employee relationship. The record shows that when complainant was relieved on June 24, 1994, there were no more assignments given to him, notwithstanding the fact as claimed by the respondents, there were numerous vacant posts available in Metro Manila. If it were true that complainant did not report for reassignment or even refused to accept any assignment, it is still incumbent on the part of the respondents to notify the complainant in writing at his last known address to report for work under pain of disciplinary action. The failure of an employee to report for work or to accept any assignment does not ipso facto result in abandonment for the law particularly Rule XIV, Section 2, Book V of the Omnibus Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code specifically enjoins the employer to send a written notice to the concerned employee at his last known address. This written notice that respondents could have sent to the complainant should have included a Duty Detail Order if indeed there were vacant posts available for the complainant. There were no such Duty Detail Orders issued by the respondents, or if one is indeed issued, there is no evidence that complainant refused to accept his assignment. Further, if indeed the respondents are really inclined to give any assignment to the complainant, they could have offered one during the initial conferences of the instant case. None of such sort was done by the respondents.
From June 25, 1994 when the complainant was relieved from his last post until the filing of this suit for illegal dismissal on March 28, 1995, or a period of more than six (6) months, there were no assignments given to the complainant. Neither were there notices sent to the complainant requiring him to report for his reassignment. These circumstances clearly indicated constructive illegal dismissal which entitled the complainant to his prayer for separation pay at the rate of one-half month pay for every year of service.
At the prevailing minimum wage rate of P145.00 per day, the complainant's monthly pay rate should be P4,723.37 computed as follows: P145.00 multiplied by 390.9 days divided by 12 months. Thus, at one-half month pay for every year of service, complainant's separation pay amounts to P23,616.85 (P4,723.37 divided by 2 times 10 years).
The complainant's claim of P20.00 per month deduction as bond is duly supported by the payslips he presented in evidence. Accordingly, this must be refunded to him. Thus, from March 29, 1984 up to June 24, 1994, or a total of 123 months, the complainant had accumulated a total deduction of P2,460.00. This claim for refund is not subject to the prescriptive period of three (3) years, since it is the complainant's own money which is involved which was merely deposited with the respondents during the duration of his employment.
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed DECISION dated October 31, 1995 is hereby AFFIRMED.
To resolve this case, only one question needs to be answered, i.e., whether or not respondent Rilles was illegally dismissed by petitioner.
We find that he was.
In this case, we defer to the factual findings of the labor arbiter, who is deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within his jurisdiction18 specially since his findings were affirmed in toto by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.
However, certain clarifications need to be made.
Thus the issue that should have been threshed out below is not just whether or not Rilles was illegally dismissed, but whether or not the assignment offered to him in Bataan was unreasonable and prejudicial to his interest which is tantamount to a constructive dismissal.
Thus, it is clear that while petitioner has the prerogative to transfer its guards pursuant to business exigencies, he has the burden, however, to show that the exercise of such prerogative was not done with grave abuse of discretion or contrary to justice and fair play.
This petitioner failed to do. He argues in his present petition that respondent Rilles was continuously offered an assignment in Bataan, and it is only Rilles who refuses, thus there cannot be any constructive dismissal. In the position paper submitted before the NLRC, however, petitioner claimed that there were many posts available in Manila where Rilles could be posted if only Rilles would agree. Thus, instead of adequately showing the necessity of such transfer to Bataan, petitioner cast doubt as to the urgency of such decision. The Labor Arbiter also noted that while petitioner claimed that there are many posts in Manila which it could give to respondent if only respondent would agree, no offer was ever made by petitioner in the conferences conducted before his office. Also, if such offer of an assignment in Manila was actually made, there would have been no need for Rilles to institute the complaint before the NLRC.
The Labor Arbiter ordered petitioner to give respondent separation pay. Separation pay, as a rule however, is given whenever reinstatement is no longer feasible due to strained relations.35 Absent any showing that reinstatement is no longer feasible in this case, we hold that respondent should be reinstated instead.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the modification that petitioner is ordered to reinstate respondent Jerry Rilles and to pay him back wages from June 25, 1994 up to the date of his reinstatement. This case is remanded to the NLRC for computation of back wages to be paid by petitioner to respondent, in addition to the refund of P2,460.00 as cash bond and ten percent (10%) of the total amount to be received by respondent as attorney's fees.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Artemio G. Tuquero and concurred in by Associate Justices Eubulo G. Verzola and Mariano M. Umali, Rollo, pp. 59-62.
10 G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 494; Rollo, p. 61.
17 Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 142133, November 19, 2002, 392 SCRA 229, 239.
18 Abalos v. Philex Mining Corporaiton, G.R. No. 140374, November 27, 2002, 393 SCRA 134, 142.
21 Abbott Laboratories (Phils.), Inc., v. NLRC, No. L-76959, October 12, 1987, 154 SCRA 713, 717.
22 Sentinel Security Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 122468, September 3, 1998, 295 SCRA 123, 133.
23 G.R. No. 112752, February 9, 2000, 325 SCRA 157.
25 G.R. No. 127421, December 8, 1999, 320 SCRA 124.
27 Yuco Chemical Industries, Inc. v. MOLE, G.R. No. 75656, 185 SCRA 727, 730.
28 G.R. No. 150092, September 27, 2002, 390 SCRA 201.
30 Asis v. NLRC, G.R. No. 107378, January 25, 1996, 252 SCRA 379, 384.
31 Sentinel Security Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, supra, p. 135.
32 Philippine Industrial Security Agency v. Dapiton, supra, p. 138.
33 Asis v. NLRC, supra, p. 385.
34 Paguio v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., Inc., G.R. No. 154072, December 3, 2002, 393 SCRA 379, 388.
35 Sentinel Security Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, supra, p. 135.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.