Cortez v. Jericko Security Services, Inc.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 230395. July 3, 2017.]

EFREN CORTEZ, petitioner,vs. JERICKO SECURITY SERVICES, INC., JUN MAKABUHAY, JULIUS SANTOS and JOHN LORD SANTOS, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 3, 2017, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 230395 (Efren Cortez vs. Jericko Security Services, Inc., Jun Makabuhay, Julius Santos and John Lord Santos). — The instant Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to reverse the Decision 1 dated July 12, 2016 and Resolution 2 dated February 28, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 139230, which dismissed petitioner's complaint for constructive illegal dismissal and denied his monetary claims.

Procedural and Factual Antecedents are as follows:

On July 25, 2013, Efren S. Cortez (petitioner) filed a complaint 3 for constructive illegal dismissal and underpayment of salary, non-payment of 13th month pay, overtime pay, holiday pay and ECOLA against Jun Makabuhay, Julius Santos, and John Lord Santos (respondents), in their capacities as President, General Manager, and OIC-North Sector, respectively.

Petitioner alleged that on February 14, 2007, he was employed by respondents as security guard and assigned to various clients, the last of which was at the Pasay Auto Mall Care Center. After his last assignment, respondents placed him on floating status which resulted in the severance of their employment relations.

Respondents, on the other hand, averred that petitioner was never dismissed, in fact he suddenly stopped reporting for work, after he was placed on floating status. Respondents also averred that they sent a written directive to petitioner to report for work as to his new assignments, but petitioner never complied. Respondents further averred that the instant complaint was prematurely filed and there was no basis for the award of the money claim. SDHTEC

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

The Labor Arbiter (LA) in a Decision 4 dated May 28, 2014, ruled that petitioner was constructively dismissed and entitled to monetary claims, viz.:

WHEREFORE, evidence and law considered, judgment is rendered holding respondents liable for complainant's ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. Accordingly, they are hereby ORDERED to solidarily pay complainant his full backwages, separation pay, salary differentials and 13th month pay, plus 10% attorney's fees.

No further award.

Attached Computation Sheet forms part hereof.

SO ORDERED.5

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission

In a Decision 6 dated October 29, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed and set aside the LA's decision. The NLRC declared that petitioner failed to prove his dismissal from service by substantial evidence. Petitioner's temporary off-detail could not have ripened into constructive dismissal since the complaint was filed within the six-month period allowed by law in instances of off-detail or floating status. The dispositive portion of the decision, provides:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision is MODIFIED. Judgment is rendered deleting the finding of illegal dismissal and consequent award of backwages and separation pay. Respondent-Appellant is, however, still ordered to pay Complainant-Appellee's salary differentials and 13th month pay. Respondent-Appellant is further ordered to reinstate Complainant-Appellee to his former employment under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the institution of the instant complaint.

SO ORDERED. 7

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in a Resolution 8 dated December 18, 2014.

Ruling of the CA

The CA in the July 12, 2016 Decision 9 affirmed the NLRC with modification as the respondents are ordered to pay petitioner his separation pay instead of reinstatement. The fallo thereof, provides:

FOR THESE REASONS, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit, and the Decision dated 29 October 2014 and Resolution dated 18 December 2014 rendered by the Fourth Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. 07-001841-14 (NLRC NCR 07-10710-13) are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that respondents are ordered to pay petitioner his separation pay instead of effecting his reinstatement. AScHCD

SO ORDERED.10

Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration while petitioner filed his motion for partial consideration. The CA granted the respondents' motion for reconsideration in a Resolution 11 dated February 28, 2017, by deleting the award of separation pay to petitioner. It also ruled that considering reinstatement is no longer applicable due to the strained relationship between the parties by reason of the filing of the instant complaint, each party must bear his or her own loss, thus, placing them on equal footing.

Hence, this present petition.

Issue

Whether the CA erred in ruling that petitioner was not illegally dismissed and thus, not entitled to monetary claims.

The Court's Ruling

The petition has no merit.

We reiterate the rule that only questions of law may be reviewed by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. A question that invites a review of the factual findings of the lower tribunals is beyond the scope of this Court's power of review and generally justifies the dismissal of the petition, except in cases were there was serious misappreciation of facts on the part of the lower courts.

Let it be stated that the issues raised were factual in nature. Time and again, this Court has ruled that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, as in this case, are binding and conclusive upon this Court, save for certain exceptions, which are not existent in this case. 12 It bears upon the petitioner to present cogent and justifiable reasons to have Us depart from the said well-established rule. Petitioner failed in this regard.

And even if We consider the factual issues raised, petitioner's claim of constructive dismissal is not supported by the facts and evidence. In the case of Exocet Security and Allied Services Corporation and/or Ma. Teresa Marcelo v. Armando D. Serrano, 13 it was held that the placement of the employee on a floating status should not last for more than six months. After six months, the employee should be recalled for work, or for a new assignment; otherwise, he is deemed terminated.

In this case, as correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner was not illegally dismissed but merely put on floating status and his complaint for illegal dismissal was filed prior to the lapse of the above six-month period, or on July 25, 2013, exactly within the six-month period allowed by law in instances of off-detail or floating status. Thus, the same is considered as prematurely filed.

Also, there is nothing on the record that shows any act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain committed by respondents that may become so unbearable on the part of the petitioner that would force him to forego his continued employment. 14 AcICHD

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision dated July 12, 2016 and Resolution dated February 28, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 139230, are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez, with Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Victoria Isabel A. Parades concurring; rollo, pp. 138-149.

2.Id. at 177-182.

3.Id. at 44-45, and Amended Complaint, id. at 48.

4.Id. at 64-73.

5.Id. at 70.

6.Id. at 104-113.

7.Id. at 112.

8.Id. at 119-120.

9.Id. at 138-149.

10.Id. at 148.

11.Id. at 177-182.

12.People of the Philippines v. Dante dela Peña and Dennis Delima, G.R. No. 207635, February 18, 2015.

13. G.R. No. 198538, September 29, 2014.

14.See Zafra and Encarma v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139013, September 17, 2002.