Castromero v. Red Mane Security Agency

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 217399. June 13, 2016.]

RENE CASTROMERO, MANUEL L. DEMAYO, and RODEL G VERROYA, petitioners,vs. RED MANE SECURITY AGENCY (now known as STORMGUARD SECURITY AGENCY)/MARY ANN PADILLA FERNANDEZ (Proprietress), also known as MARY ANN PADILLA FERNANDEZ KABIGTING/MARY ANN KABIGTING, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 June 2016which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 217399: RENE CASTROMERO, MANUEL L. DEMAYO, and RODEL G. VERROYA v. RED MANE SECURITY AGENCY (now known as STORMGUARD SECURITY AGENCY)/MARY ANN PADILLA FERNANDEZ (Proprietress), also known as MARY ANN PADILLA FERNANDEZ KABIGTING/MARY ANN KABIGTING.

Before us is a Petition for Review 1 assailing the Court of Appeals' (a) July 11, 2014 Decision 2 that affirmed the National Labor Relations Commission in finding no illegal constructive dismissal but modified the Labor Arbiter Decision by ordering additional awards, and (b) March 10, 2015 Resolution 3 that denied reconsideration.

On May 23, 2012, petitioners Rene Castromero, Manuel L. Demayo, and Rodel G. Verroya filed a complaint for illegal (constructive) dismissal. 4

They alleged that respondent Red Mane Security Agency (now known as Stormguard Security Agency), of sole proprietor Mary Ann Kabigting, hired them as security guards as early as January 1, 2007. 5 Assigned at Perla Mansion Condominium Corporation (Perla Mansion), a residential building in Makati, they worked rotating shifts of six to seven days a week or two (2) weeks on end at the Agency's discretion. 6

Petitioners alleged that their employer began turning hostile to them in February 2012. 7 They worked over 16 hours a day without overtime pay or night shift differential. 8 Their employer berated them without reason and suspected them of telling Perla Mansion's administration that the Agency had been remiss in its obligations: non-payment of proper wages, non-remittance of premiums and contributions to SSS, Philhealth, Pag-IBIG, and other labor standards violations. 9

They alleged that the hostility against them increased in April 2012, after the President of Perla Mansion's Association wrote to Enrique Domingo F. Kabigting, Mary Ann Kabigting's common-law husband, expressing serious concern over a Philippine National Police-Crame notice that the Agency's license to operate had already expired in 2010. 10 Petitioners were suspected of "tipping" the authorities on the expired license. They allegedly received anonymous text messages from May 6 to 11, 2012, threatening them and urging them to resign. 11

They filed their respective "cessation" letters on May 12, 2012, indicating May 30, 2012 as effectivity date of their resignation. 12 The Agency no longer waited for May 30, 2012 and immediately assigned new security guards at Perla Mansion. 13 Petitioners were ordered not to enter Perla Mansion at the close of their May 21, 2012 duty. 14 Their two-week salary for the period of May 1 to 15, 2012 was never deposited to their ATM accounts. 15

On the other hand, the Agency countered that it hired petitioners Castromero and Verroya sometime in October 2008, and petitioner Demayo sometime in October 2009. 16 They resigned during the second week of May 2012, effective May 30, 2012. 17 Their cessation letters expressed an intention to no longer finish their Perla Mansion posting and instead requested for vacation leave until the effectivity date of their resignation. 18 Even without leave approval, they no longer reported to work. 19

The Labor Arbiter 20 dismissed the complaint for constructive dismissal but found meritorious the claim for unpaid salaries for two (2) weeks and the proportionate 13th month pay. 21 Separation pay and overtime pay claims were denied. 22 The Labor Arbiter held that it had no jurisdiction over claims of non-remittance of SSS, Philhealth, and Pag-IBIG contributions. 23

The National Labor Relations Commission, in its Resolution dated May 31, 2013, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for constructive dismissal but ordered the award of additional claims including holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, and cash bond refund. 24 It denied reconsideration. 25 The dispositive portion of the May 31, 2013 Resolution reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The 30 January 2013 Decision of Labor Arbiter Enrique L. Flores, Jr. is MODIFIED ordering Respondents, Red Mane Security Agency and Mary Anne Kabigting to pay complainants' 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay and cash bond refund for the last three (3) years of their employment in the following amounts:

1.	Castromero, Rene
	13th month pay	P54,000.00
	Service Incentive Leave Pay	P9,000.00
	Holiday Pay	P22,800.00
	Cash Bond	P7,200.00
		––––––––––
		P93,000.00
		=========
2.	Verroya, Rodel
	13th month pay	P54,000.00
	Service Incentive Leave Pay	P9,000.00
	Holiday Pay	P22,800.00
	Cash Bond	P7,200.00
		––––––––––
		P93,000.00
		=========
3.	Demayo, Manuel
	13th month pay	P54,000.00
	Service Incentive Leave Pay	P9,000.00
	Holiday Pay	P22,800.00
	Cash Bond	P7,200.00
		––––––––––
		P93,000.00
		=========

 

The award of unpaid salaries is AFFIRMED.

All other claims are denied for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 26

The Court of Appeals, in its Decision 27 dated July 11, 2014, affirmed the National Labor Relations Commission Resolutions dated May 31, 2013 and July 12, 2013. 28 It also denied reconsideration. 29

Hence, this Petition was filed.

Petitioners argue illegal constructive dismissal. They submit that they "tendered their resignation when their work circumstances, especially their having been deprived of SSS protection, made their continued employment with the [r]espondents, unbearable." 30 They narrate stories of losing loved ones and being buried in debt as a result of being deprived of SSS and other benefits. 31

They argue that constructive dismissal exists since: (1) respondents consistently failed to pay their wages, or their payment was delayed or staggered; 32 (2) respondents "never convincingly disproved, in their Position Papers, that they were not the ones who sent those threatening text messages pressuring [petitioners] to resign or else, something very bad [would] happen to them and their families"; 33 (3) respondents unilaterally changed the date and terms of their employment, in that the original contract provided for overtime pay and service incentive leave pay, among others, yet they only received P6,000.00 monthly; 34 and (4) respondents failed to pay the mandatory premium contributions; thus, petitioners were not able to avail themselves of SSS and Pag-IBIG benefits. 35

In their Comment, 36 respondents counter that the Petition should have been outright dismissed for failure to attach a copy of the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution to the Petition furnished to respondents' counsel. 37

Respondents argue that the Petition also raised questions of fact such as whether petitioners' resignation was voluntary, and questions like this cannot be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45. 38 In any event, the Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that petitioners voluntarily resigned; thus, no dismissal or constructive dismissal took place. 39 Petitioners have also signed a release waiver and quitclaim; thus, they acknowledge the lawful cessation of their employment. 40

We affirm the Court of Appeals Decision.

Resignation, being voluntary, contradicts a claim of illegal dismissal. Thus, when an employee tenders resignation, he or she has the burden of proving that the resignation "was not voluntary but was actually a case of constructive dismissal; that it is a product of coercion or intimidation." 41 The Court of Appeals Decision discussed that the resignation letters were voluntary:

Pertinent portions of the resignation letters of petitioners would readily show that their individual resignation was voluntary, clear, and unequivocal. In his cessation letter, petitioner Castromero wrote, "Ako po ay nakapagpasya na tumigil na sa pamamasukan ko sa inyong agency bilang isang security guard. Ang resignation ko po na sinang ayunan [sic] din ng aking pamilya ay magiging epiktibo mula May 30, 2012." On the part of petitioner Demayo, he said, "Sa pamamagitan ng resignation letter na ito, magpapaalam na po ako sa inyo. Buo na ang desisyon ko at ng aking pamilya, na humanap ng mas maayos na trabahong mapapasukan ko." Petitioner Verroya also expressed, "Nais ko na pong humanap ng ibang mapapasukan . . . Magreresign na ako bilang empleyado ng Redmane Security Agency simula May 30, 2012 ngunit magpapaalam na po ako mula May 20, 2012 para maisaayos ko ang lahat."

There is no indication in their respective resignation letters that petitioners were threatened, intimidated, unduly influenced, or coerced to resign. The fact that they were dissatisfied or discontented with their employment with private respondents cannot be equated with unbearable working conditions. It is the right of every employee to resign from his or her job/employment for whatever reason, arbitrary or not. However, an employee's claim that he or she was forced to resign because of impossible, unreasonable, or unbearable working conditions must be substantiated by clear, positive, and convincing evidence in order to constitute constructive dismissal. Petitioners proffered no such evidence. No competent witness, document, or any other proof was presented to substantiate their claim of constructive dismissal.42 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

WHEREFORE, this Court resolves to DENY the Petition on the ground of no reversible error by the Court of Appeals.

SO ORDERED."

(Brion, J., on official leave.)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 3-21.

2. Id. at 49-59. The Decision, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 131845, was penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles of the Fourteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

3. Id. at 69-70. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles of the Former Fourteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

4. Id. at 51, Court of Appeals Decision.

5. Id. at 50.

6. Id.

7 Id. at 50-51.

8 Id. at 51.

9. Id.

10. Id.

11. Id.

12. Id.

13. Id.

14. Id.

15. Id.

16. Id.

17. Id.

18. Id. at 52.

19. Id.

20. Labor Arbiter Enrique L. Flores, Jr.

21. Rollo, p. 52.

22. Id.

23. Id.

24. Id. at 50 and 52.

25. Id. at 50.

26. Id. at 50.

27. Id. at 49-59.

28. Id. at 58-59.

29. Id. at 69-70.

30. Id. at 6, Petition for Review.

31. Id. at 4.

32. Id. at 13.

33. Id.

34. Id. at 13-14.

35. Id. at 14-16.

36. Id. at 82-97.

37. Id. at 84.

38. Id. at 85.

39. Id. at 87-89.

40. Id. at 89-90.

41. Gan v. Galderma Philippines, Inc., 701 Phil. 612, 640 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division], citing Vicente v. Court of Appeals, 557 Phil. 777, 787 (2007) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Third Division].

42. Rollo, pp. 57-58, Court of Appeals Decision.