Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81788:193756&catid=1569&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:00:32+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 193756, April 10, 2013 - VENANCIO S. REYES, EDGARDO C. DABBAY, WALTER A. VIGILIA, NEMECIO M. CALANNO, ROGELIO A. SUPE, JR., ROLAND R. TRINIDAD, AND AURELIO A. DULDULAO, Petitioners, v. RP GUARDIANS SECURITY AGENCY, INC., Respondents.
VENANCIO S. REYES, EDGARDO C. DABBAY, WALTER A. VIGILIA, NEMECIO M. CALANNO, ROGELIO A. SUPE, JR., ROLAND R. TRINIDAD, AND AURELIO A. DULDULAO, Petitioners, v. RP GUARDIANS SECURITY AGENCY, INC., Respondents.
Before the Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the May 18, 2010 Amended Decision1 and the September 13, 2010 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in C.A.-GR. SP No. 106643, which modified the April 9, 2008 Decision3 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC Case No. 11-002990-07, insofar as the award of backwages, the computation of separation pay, and the refund for the trust fund contributions are concerned.
Petitioners Venancio S. Reyes, Edgardo C. Dabbay, Walter A. Vigilia, Nemesio M. Calanno, Rogelio A. Supe, Jr., Roland R. Trinidad, and Aurelio A. Duldulao (petitioners) were hired by respondent RP Guardians Security Agency, Inc. (respondent) as security guards. They were deployed to various clients of respondent, the last of which were the different branches of Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (Banco Filipino).
In September 2006, respondent’s security contract with Banco Filipino was terminated. In separate letters,4 petitioners were individually informed of the termination of the security contract with Banco de Oro. In two (2) memoranda, dated September 21, 20065 and September 29, 2006,6 petitioners were directed to turnover their duties and responsibilities to the incoming security agency and were advised that they would be placed on floating status while waiting for available post. Petitioners waited for their next assignment, but several months lapsed and they were not given new assignments.
Consequently, on April 10, 2007, petitioners filed a complaint7 for constructive dismissal.
In its position paper,8 respondent claimed that there was no dismissal, of petitioners, constructive or otherwise, and asserted that their termination was due to the expiration of the service contract which was coterminus with their contract of employment.
On August 20, 2007, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision9 in favor of petitioners ordering respondent to pay petitioners separation pay, backwages, refund of trust fund, moral and exemplary damages, and attorneys fees.
Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the NLRC.
On April 9, 2008, the NLRC promulgated its decision10 sustaining the finding of constructive dismissal by the LA, and the awards she made in the decision. The award of moral and exemplary damages, however, were deleted.
Upon denial of its motion for reconsideration,11 respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.
On February 26, 2010, the CA rendered a decision12 dismissing the petition and affirming the assailed NLRC decision and resolution.
On motion for reconsideration, the CA issued the Amended Decision13 dated May 18, 2010, modifying its earlier decision. Citing Section 6.5 (4) of Department Order No. 14 of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE D.O. No. 14), otherwise known as Guidelines Governing the Employment and Working Conditions of Security Guards and Similar Personnel in the Private Security Industry, the CA reduced the computation of the separation pay from one month pay per year of service to one-half month pay for every year of service; reduced the refund of trust fund contribution from Sixty (P60.00) Pesos to Thirty (P30.00)Pesos; and deleted the award of backwages and attorney’s fees.
The Court of Appeals has decided a question of substance in a way that is not in accord with law and with applicable decisions of the Supreme Court concerning the Petitioner’s basic right to fair play, justice and due process, with more reason that a conclusion of law cannot be made in the motion for reconsideration.
The first decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals on February 26, 2010 affirming the decision of the NLRC awarding both backwages and separation pay of one month pay for every year of service can only be set aside upon proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law.
4. Lack of service assignment for a continuous period of 6 months.
The said provision contemplates a situation where a security guard is removed for authorized causes such as when the security agency experiences a surplus of security guards brought about by lack of clients. In such a case, the security agency has the option to resort to retrenchment upon compliance with the procedural requirements of “two-notice rule” set forth in the Labor Code and to pay separation pay of one-half month for every year of service.
In this case, respondent would have been liable for reinstatement and payment of backwages. Reinstatement, however, was no longer feasible because, as found by the LA, respondent had already ceased operation of its business.25 Thus, backwages and separation pay, in the amount of one month for every year of service, should be paid in lieu of reinstatement.
Finally, as to the refund of the trust fund contribution, a perusal of the records shows that the amount deducted for the trust fund contribution from each petitioner varies. Some petitioners were deducted the amount of P15.00 every payday while others were deducted P30.00 every payday. Thus, the Court deems it proper to refer the computation of the same to the LA.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The May 18, 2010 Amended Decision and the September 13, 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 106643 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The April 9, 2008 Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission, modifying the August 20, 2007 Decision of the Labor Arbiter, is REINSTATED.
1Rollo, pp. 49-53. Penned by Associate Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in by Associate Justices Arturo G. Tayag and Franchito N. Diamante.
9 Id. at 82-89. Penned by Labor Arbiter Teresita D. Castillon-Lora.
12 Id. at 58-71. Penned by Associate Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in by Associate Justices Arturo G. Tayag and Franchito N. Diamante.
15Salvoza v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 182086, November 24, 2010, 636 SCRA 184, 197-198.
16Sentinel Security Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 356 Phil. 434, 443 (1998).
17 Article 13, Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
18 Article 277 Labor Code.
19 Article 279 of the Labor Code.
20Torillo v. Leogardo, Jr., 274 Phil. 758, 765 (1991).
21St. Michael’s Institute v. Santos, 422 Phil. 723, 736 (2001).
22De Guzman v. National Labor Relations Commission, 371 Phil. 192, 202 (1999).
23 G.R. No. 185829, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 186.
24 G.R. No. 187200, May 5, 2010, 620 SCRA 283, 289-290, citing Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines, G.R. No. 178524, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 500.
25 Page 7 of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, rollo, p. 88.
26 PCL Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 540 Phil. 65, 85(2006); Rutaquio v. National Labor Relations Commission, 375 Phil. 405, 418 (1999).

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