SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227348. June 10, 2019.]
ERNESTO MEDALLA AZARES, petitioner, vs.MATAPAT PILIPINO SECURITY & INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC., REPUBLIC BISCUIT CORPORATION, RENAN B. ROBLES, MA. GAYLE D. ROBLES, HENRY C. LANOT II, RHODA I. LANOT, DENNIS C. YAP, ROY IAN B. MONTOYA, RALPH GERALD D. ROBLES, JONATHAN C. NG, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 227348 — ERNESTO MEDALLA AZARES, petitioner, versus MATAPAT PILIPINO SECURITY & INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC., REPUBLIC BISCUIT CORPORATION, RENAN B. ROBLES, MA. GAYLE D. ROBLES, HENRY C. LANOT II, RHODA I. LANOT, DENNIS C. YAP, ROY IAN B. MONTOYA, RALPH GERALD D. ROBLES, JONATHAN C. NG, respondents.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated March 28, 2016 (Assailed Decision) and Resolution 3 dated September 21, 2016 (Assailed Resolution) of the Court of Appeals (CA) Second Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 142952.
Facts
Petitioner Ernesto Medalla Azares (Azares) was a former security guard of Lawin Security Agency (Lawin) deployed at the manufacturing plant located in Novaliches, Quezon City, of respondent Republic Biscuit Corporation (Rebisco), a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of snack food products. 4 When the contract between Lawin and Rebisco was terminated, the latter entered into a new contract for security services with respondent Matapat Pilipino Security & Investigation Agency, Inc. (MPSIA) which likewise absorbed Azares. Eventually, Azares was appointed as Detachment Commander in Rebisco's security force.
On December 3, 2013, Azares discovered from the logbook of the guard-on-duty that he was being monitored, as allegedly ordered by Lady Guard Gloria Jabaybay (Jabaybay). Azares confronted Jabaybay and an oral altercation ensued. 5 Eventually, Azares was served by MPSIA a Show Cause Order dated December 4, 2013, 6 directing him to explain, within 24 hours from receipt, why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for "engaging in a wrangling spree in front of outgoing employees" 7 which violated company rules on professional conduct and ethics for employees. 8
MPSIA conducted an investigation relative to the altercation incident between Jabaybay and Azares and eventually issued a Resolution 9 dated January 10, 2014, finding both of them guilty of violating the company rules on professional conduct and ethics and imposing upon them the penalty of reprimand, in light of the fact that they were both first offenders. However, in the same Resolution, Azares was investigated on his other infractions, 10 and was found guilty of the administrative charges, particularly, his alleged act of tampering his time cards and rendering undertime work. As such, he was meted the penalty of suspension for six months, effective May 16, 2014 11 and a fine of P1,000.00. 12
On November 16, 2014, after his six-month suspension, Azares reported to Rebisco's consultant Col. Agustin Cabales, Jr. (Col. Cabales) who told him to secure a Daily Detail Order (DDO) before reporting back to work. On November 17, 2014, Azares went to MPSIA to secure the DDO but was told that he could no longer return to work in Rebisco since his position was then already occupied. Allegedly, Azares was told that he should just resign and that Rebisco was willing to pay him separation pay. Aggrieved, Azares filed the present complaint for constructive dismissal.
On the other hand, respondents aver that Azares was discovered to have committed several infractions of Rebisco's and MPSIA's company policies, among them: 1) tampering his time cards and padding the payroll to misrepresent that he rendered full hours and days of work when he went undertime and incurred several absences; 2) wearing civilian clothes and cleaning his motorcycle while on duty; and 3) engaging in a public altercation with Jabaybay. These were reported by Rebisco to MPSIA, which then triggered the investigation against Azares. 13 When he returned to work after his suspension, Azares was offered to be assigned to another MPSIA client, considering that Rebisco found his performance unsatisfactory and that there was already another security guard occupying his previous post. Azares, however, refused the offer and insisted on returning to his old post in Rebisco. 14
The parties failed to arrive at a settlement before the Labor Arbiter. Hence, they were directed to submit their position papers. On March 30, 2015, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision, finding Azares to have been constructively dismissed and ordering MPSIA to reinstate him to his former position without loss of seniority rights and to pay him backwages and other monetary benefits. The other respondents, who were officers of MPSIA, were dropped as parties. 15
Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In a Decision dated July 24, 2015, the NLRC reversed and set aside the Labor Arbiter's Decision, except for the award of 13th month pay. In all other aspects, including the claim of constructive dismissal and for backwages, the complaint of Azares was dismissed. 16
Azares filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) which was, however, denied for lack of merit in the Resolution of the NLRC dated August 28, 2015. Hence, he filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the CA.
In the Assailed Decision, the CA found that Azares was not constructively dismissed as the records show nothing which would support such claim. On the contrary, Azares was, in fact, directed to report back to work after his suspension and was offered a new assignment which he refused as he unduly insisted on going back to his old post at Rebisco. 17 The CA likewise noted that Azares did not contest the result of the administrative investigation regarding his infractions. 18 Hence, the CA denied Azares' Rule 65 Petition and affirmed the NLRC's findings, disposing of the case, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision dated July 24, 2015 and Resolution dated August 28, 2015 of public respondent NLRC in NLRC LAC No. 07-001743-15, NCR Case No. 12-15129-14 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.19
Azares filed an MR but the same was denied in the Assailed Resolution. Hence, the present recourse.
In assailing the findings of the CA, Azares essentially avers that MPSIA did not, in fact, offer him a new assignment. On the contrary, he was told to resign as the management of Rebisco was going to pay him his separation pay anyway. 20 As such, he was constructively dismissed. Moreover, he did not abandon his work as evidenced by his act of filing the complaint for constructive dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement. 21
Issue
Whether the CA erred when it affirmed the NLRC's findings that Azares was not constructively and illegally dismissed.
Ruling
The petition must be denied.
Azares questions the factual findings of the NLRC and the CA that he was offered a new assignment after his six-month suspension. Unfortunately for him, it is settled that in a petition for review on certiorari, only questions of law may be raised and questions of fact may not be inquired into. 22 While there are exceptions to the rule, 23 none of them was alleged and proven to obtain in the present case.
Likewise settled is the rule that factual findings of administrative bodies or quasi-judicial bodies, including labor tribunals, are accorded much respect by the Court as they are specialized to rule on matters falling within their jurisdiction, especially when supported by substantial evidence. 24 This doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases as questions of fact in labor cases are for the labor tribunals to resolve. Even more so, findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, as affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on the Court. 25
In the present case, the CA, affirming the NLRC, made the factual findings that Azares, after his suspension, was ordered to return back to MPSIA and was therein offered a new assignment, which Azares refused. Instead, he insisted on going back to his previous assignment in Rebisco, which was then already filled up. 26
These findings are supported by substantial evidence, such as the Memorandum 27 dated November 18, 2014 issued by MPSIA to Azares, directing him to report back to work for possible posting. On the other hand, the contrary factual narration of Azares is unsubstantiated and self-serving. Being so, the Court cannot, and will not, disturb the factual findings of the NLRC, as affirmed by the CA, in the present case.
Neither does the Court see reason to reverse the ruling that Azares was not constructively dismissed. Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work, because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay and other benefits. 28
The Court has ruled that the management's prerogative of transferring and reassigning employees from one area of operation to another in order to meet the requirements of the business does not generally constitute constructive dismissal, 29 so long as such transfer is not unreasonable, or inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee, and it does not involve a demotion in rank or diminution of salaries, benefits and other privileges. 30 This applies more strongly in the case of security guards, whose employment generally depends on their employers' contracts with third-party clients. In such cases, the posting of the security guards is dictated, not only by the management but also by the requirements and demands of the latter's clients. 31 Hence, while security guards have security of tenure, such does not vest them with the right to their assignments and does not deprive the employer of its prerogative to transfer them. Quoting the Court, in Spectrum Security Services, Inc.: 32
Security guards, like other employees in the private sector, are entitled to security of tenure. However, their situation should be differentiated from that of other employees or workers. The employment of security guards generally depends on their employers' contracts with clients who are third parties to the employment relationship, and the requirements of the latter for security services and what will be beneficial to them dictate the posting of the security guards. It is also relevant to mention that their employers retain the management prerogative to change their assignments and postings, and to decide to temporarily relieve them of their assignments. In other words, their security of tenure, though it shields them from demotions in rank or diminutions of salaries, benefits and other privileges, does not vest them with the right to their positions or assignments that will prevent their transfers or re-assignments (unless the transfers or re-assignments are motivated by discrimination or bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause). 33 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Here, the Court cannot subscribe to Azares' claim of constructive dismissal. He was merely transferred to another assignment, which he did not allege to entail a demotion in rank or diminution in salary and other benefits. 34 The offered assignment was, plain and simple, just not the position that he wanted. Azares insisted that he be assigned back to his previous post, which was no longer feasible as the same was already occupied when his suspension lapsed. Surely, Rebisco cannot be reasonably expected to wait six months until the lapse of Azares' suspension before it fills up the latter's position of Detachment-in-Charge — a position whose task of supervising the security force in Rebisco's office is, needless to say, crucial to the operations of Rebisco. Hence, MPSIA was justified to offer Azares a different assignment.
In light of the foregoing, the petition must fail as the CA acted correctly in affirming the findings of the NLRC and ruling against the claim of constructive dismissal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated March 28, 2016 and Resolution dated September 21, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 142952 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. (J. REYES, JR., J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-26.
2.Id. at 29-36; Penned by Associate Justice and Chairperson Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Socorro B. Inting concurring.
3.Id. at 27-28.
4.See COMMENTS of Rebisco, id. at 80.
5.Id. at 31.
6.Id. at 52.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 54-58.
10. Azares was investigated on the following charges of Jabaybay:
1) always reading the newspaper in front of the office staff entering company premises; 2) wearing civilian attire during Saturdays and Sundays; 3) cleaning his personal motorcycle during office hours; 4) tampering time (sic) and doing payroll padding; 5) going out of the company premises and sometimes going home during duty hours; 6) uttering profane language and spreading rumors about co-employees; and 7) complaining publicly about his work. (Id. at 55-56)
11.See Memorandum dated May 5, 2014 to Rebisco's consultant PPSUPT Agustin Cabales, Jr., attached to the Petition as Annex "I," id. at 53.
12.Id. at 57.
13.Id. at 31.
14.Id. at 71-72.
15.Id. at 33.
16.Id. at 30.
17.Id. at 33-35.
18.Id. at 34.
19.Id. at 35.
20.Id. at 14.
21.Id. at 17.
22. See Naguit v. San Miguel Corporation, 761 Phil. 184, 193 (2015).
23. As enumerated in Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 182-183 (2016), the exceptions are:
(1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record.
24. See DOHLE Philman Manning Agency, Inc. v. Doble, G.R. No. 223730, October 4, 2017, 842 SCRA 204, 213.
25.Id.
26.Rollo, pp. 34-45.
27.Id. at 66.
28. Verdadero v. Barney Autolines Group of Companies Transport, Inc., 693 Phil. 646, 656 (2012).
29. See Bello v. Bonifacio Security Services, Inc., 670 Phil. 563, 659 (2011).
30. See Bisig Manggagawa sa Tryco v. National Labor Relations Commission, 590 Phil. 135, 145 (2008).
31. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. v. Grave, 810 Phil. 590, 597 (2017).
32. Id.
33. Id. at 597-598.
34. Rollo, p. 35.