Kaizen Security Agency Corp. v. Grejalvo

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 249124. December 2, 2020.]

KAIZEN SECURITY AGENCY CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.RAMON B. GREJALVO, RODEL G. GAJES, ET AL., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 2, 2020which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 249124 (Kaizen Security Agency Corporation v. Ramon B. Grejalvo, Rodel G. Gajes, et al.). — This appeal by certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision 2 dated March 13, 2019 and the Resolution 3 dated August 16, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 154601 holding petitioner Kaizen Security Agency Corporation (Kaizen) liable for the illegal dismissal of private respondents Ramon B. Grejalvo, Rodel G. Gajes, Jenny Rose M. Tayo, Julie Ann B. Lasin, Emelda B. Tapac, Wilson P. Marcellana (Marcellana), Apollo B. Clarino, and Arnel A. Taghap (collectively, respondents).

Facts of the Case

Kaizen is a company engaged in the business of providing security services. On separate occasions covering the period from 2007 to 2013, the company employed respondents as security guards. All eight respondents were detailed at the Light Rail Transit Line 1 (LRT1). 4

On January 5, 2016, respondents, except Marcellana, claimed that they were suspended for three days without due process for their alleged absences without official leave. After the suspension, the seven respondents returned to work but were informed of the termination of their posts at LRT1. They claimed that they were given options by Kaizen either to: (a) resign; (b) be transferred and work at the Metro Rail Transit Line 3 (MRT3); or (c) be put on floating status. The seven respondents opted to be transferred to MRT3, where they rendered a three-day on-the-job training and were given duty detail orders at MRT3 until January 31, 2016. 5

On January 21, 2016, Kaizen recalled 58 employees detailed at MRT3, including the seven respondents. Respondents claimed that the recalled employees reported to Kaizen's office and requested the transfer of their posts back to LRT1. To their surprise, the company advised that their services will no longer be retained. Kaizen persuaded all the recalled employees to apply with Kaizen's sister company. Kaizen also instructed the recalled employees to tender resignation letters. The seven respondents refused to apply with the sister company because they are already regular employees of Kaizen. Since then, the seven respondents have not heard from Kaizen. 6

As to Marcellana, he claimed that he failed to report for work at his LRT1 post on February 16, 2016. The following day, LRT1 relieved Marcellana from his post and instructed him to proceed to the office of Kaizen. Marcellana immediately went to the office of the company but was made to wait at the guard post the entire time he was at the company premises. He claimed that he was never called to the office. Thereafter, Marcellana was no longer given any duty detail or new assignment. 7 CAIHTE

On April 12, 2016, while all eight respondents were waiting for their reassignments, they filed a complaint for money claims, particularly underpayment of labor mandated renumerations, non-payment of benefits, and payment of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. During the mandatory conference, Kaizen offered to pay P20,000.00 to each respondent for the settlement of all their claims, which included their severance pay. Respondents did not accept the offer. 8

Thereafter, respondents claimed that they have not heard from the company and have been in floating status for more than six months since their recall on January 21, 2016 and February 17, 2016 in Marcellana's case. On September 29, 2016, or beyond six months from their recall by the company, respondents, except Marcellana, filed a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against the company. Marcellana also filed a labor complaint on October 13, 2016 or over six months from his recall. 9

Kaizen, on the other hand, denied the illegal dismissal of respondents. The company asserted that the recall of respondents, except Marcellana, was pursuant to a letter from the Department of Transportation and Communications-MRT3 (DOTC-MRT3) relieving 58 security personnel of Kaizen. 10 The seven respondents were among the 58 personnel relieved from the MRT3 detail on the ground that "newly hired security guards" were deployed to DOTC-MRT3 without its knowledge. 11 Thus, the deployed employees failed to undergo the interview process and orientation seminar conducted by the officers from MRT3. Kaizen also learned that necessary government clearances of the seven respondents expired in June 2015 while other clearances were near expiry from January 21 to 29 of 2016. 12 Kaizen directed the seven respondents to renew their government clearances for their reassignment. The seven respondents neither returned to the company premises to submit their renewed clearances nor reported for work. 13 On February 18, 2016, Kaizen, by registered mail, sent out Orders to Report 14 to the seven respondents. Despite the return-to-work orders, none of the seven respondents proceeded to Kaizen. 15

As to Marcellana, the company received a report 16 from its client, LRT1, advising on Marcellana's absence without official leave (AWOL) beginning March 1, 2016. Officers from LRT1 recommended that Marcellana be "dropped from the roster of troops." 17 Pursuant to the report, Kaizen, by registered mail, sent out to Marcellana a notice 18 dated April 4, 2016. The letter stated that, effective March 16, 2016, Marcellana is placed on AWOL status and is dropped from the rolls due to his unauthorized absences. Kaizen also directed Marcellana to report to its office, but the latter did not comply. Kaizen was surprised to learn of the illegal dismissal complaints filed against it considering that there is no dismissal of all eight respondents. 19

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

On February 1, 2017, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision 20 dismissing the complaint of all eight respondents because they failed to prove the fact of their dismissal. Kaizen sufficiently established with substantial evidence the reason for recall of the seven respondents from their MRT3 posts. Kaizen's client, DOTC-MRT3, relieved 58 personnel, including the seven respondents, because the employees were deployed to the client without its knowledge resulting in their failure to undergo the interview and orientation processes. Anent respondent Marcellana's case, it was sufficiently proven that he went AWOL. 21

The LA also found that Kaizen sent out to all eight respondents Orders to Report. Respondents failed to present clear, positive and convincing proof that the company dismissed them from employment or that there was failure to provide them with new assignments. In fact, despite notice, respondents failed to report to the company's office. The LA held that it is Kaizen's decision to reassign respondents or to require them to report for work. It is a valid exercise of management prerogative. Finally, the LA ordered the refund of P100.00 per month to respondents after finding that deductions were made from respondents' salaries as gun bond. 22

On October 6, 2017 and pursuant to the Decision of the LA, Kaizen, by registered mail, sent out to all eight respondents Orders to Report. 23 In a letter 24 dated October 12, 2017, counsel for respondents informed the company that the employees "opted not to report x x x while the decision x x x is not yet final and executory." 25

Respondents appealed the Decision of the LA.

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission

In a Decision 26 dated May 31, 2017, the NLRC ruled in favor of respondents. The NLRC held that the respondents were constructively dismissed from employment because they were placed on floating status for more than six months. Respondents filed their labor complaints beyond six months from their last report of duty with Kaizen. 27 There is also no proof that respondents received the Orders to Report sent by the company. The NLRC emphasized that a relief and transfer order does not sever the employment relationship of the security guards with the agency. The temporary off-detail or the period of time security guards are made to wait until they are transferred or assigned to a new post or client does not constitute constructive dismissal so long as such status does not extend beyond six months. The 6-month period was clearly not observed in this case. 28

The NLRC is also unconvinced of the company's claim that respondents were not given assignments due to their failure to return to work. Such incident cannot be considered as abandonment of employment. In fact, respondents' filing of the illegal dismissal complaint is inconsistent with the charge for abandonment. Kaizen failed to show proof of deliberate refusal of the employees to report for work. If it were true that respondents abandoned their employment, the NLRC held that the employer can act on the ground of abandonment against the employees. Instead, the company permitted respondents' floating status to extend beyond six months. 29 The NLRC ordered payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to one month pay for every year of service until the finality of the Decision of the NLRC, backwages reckoned from their dismissal on January 21, 2016 until finality of the decision, their salary amounting to P1,572.00 each for the 3-day on-the-job training and 10% attorney's fees. 30 DETACa

Kaizen filed a motion for reconsideration of the Decision dated May 31, 2017 of the NLRC. The company mainly argued that respondents' renewed government-issued clearances should not be considered as evidence because they were belatedly submitted in the proceedings. The renewed government clearances are not proof that same were submitted to Kaizen. 31 In a Resolution 32 dated September 13, 2017, the NLRC set aside its Decision dated May 31, 2017 and reinstated the Decision dated February 1, 2017 of the LA, which dismissed respondents' labor complaints.

For the seven respondents assigned to MRT3, the NLRC explained that their posting for a job detail is dependent on whether the employees have renewed their government-issued clearances. The seven respondents knew that the reason for their recall from MRT3 was due to their expired or near expiry government clearances. The clearances of the seven respondents, which were belatedly submitted in evidence, were renewed on January 22, 2016 or a day after Kaizen recalled the seven respondents from their posts. An affidavit executed by an MRT3 officer even stated that the seven respondents were relieved from duty for their expired or near expiry government clearances. The NLRC sustained Kaizen's position that the seven respondents did not report to the company despite notice to submit the necessary clearance and for possible reassignment. Thus, the displacement of the seven respondents was prompted "not because of lack of assignment but because of their ineligibility brought about by their oversight in not updating and submitting their clearances to the employer agency." 33 The NLRC held that there is no clear indication that respondents were dismissed or placed on floating status. 34

Anent Marcellana, the NLRC held that there is no dismissal. An order 'dropping a security guard from the rolls' 35 does not in itself sever employment relationship between Kaizen and Marcellana. This only means that Marcellana is removed from the roster of Kaizen's client, MRT3. Further, Marcellana's failure to explain his continued unauthorized absences is a valid reason for the company to terminate his employment. The NLRC held that no bad faith can be ascribed to the company in proceeding against the absentee guard to explain his unauthorized absences. 36

The NLRC still did not find abandonment on the part of all eight employees. As there is no dismissal and no abandonment, the NLRC ordered Kaizen to find new assignments for respondents. Failure to provide assignment for lack of position within 30 days shall entitle respondents separation pay. 37

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the CA under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In the assailed Decision 38 dated March 13, 2019, the CA reinstated the Decision of the NLRC dated May 31, 2017. 39 The CA held that all eight respondents were constructively dismissed from employment. While all eight respondents received Orders to Return from the employer company, none of the letters indicated a specific assignment or post for their redeployment. Following the pronouncement in Ibon v. Genghis Khan Security Services, 40 a general return-to-work order does not suffice as notice for reassignment. 41 The orders to return sent out by Kaizen do not indicate an attempt to redeploy respondents. The CA found no substantial evidence to support the NRLC's ruling that the return-to-work orders were for purposes of their possible reassignment. Considering that all eight respondents were not given any posts from the time of their recall by the employer company, there is clear showing that the "off-detail" period lasted for more than 6 months, which constitutes constructive dismissal. 42

As to the case of the seven respondents assigned to MRT3, the CA did not give credence to Kaizen's position that the seven respondents were ineligible for employment due to their failure to update government-issued clearances. The reason the seven respondents were relieved from their posts was because they were deployed to DOTC-MRT3 without its knowledge. As a result, the employees failed to undergo the interview and orientation seminars. The Orders to Report sent by Kaizen to the seven respondents even failed to indicate the need to renew government clearances. 43

Kaizen moved to reconsider the Decision of the CA. Kaizen argued that respondents abandoned employment. The company presented, for the first time, the Social Security System (SSS) employment history of the eight respondents, which indicates that respondents are already working for different security agencies as early as February 2016 or on dates prior the expiration of the 6-month floating status period. 44 In a Resolution 45 dated August 16, 2019, the CA denied Kaizen's Motion for Reconsideration. The CA held that the evidence and issue on abandonment were not raised before the labor tribunal proceedings, preventing the same from passing upon on the matter. Thus, the CA cannot rule on such issue due to the basic considerations of due process. The CA held that it is precluded from considering and giving weight to the SSS records which were presented at such late stage of the proceedings. 46 aDSIHc

Petitioner's Arguments

As a result, Kaizen filed the instant appeal by certiorari with this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The company argued that findings of facts and of law by the labor tribunals must be afforded respect and finality. The LA and the NLRC's favorable ruling for Kaizen must be upheld. 47 There is substantial evidence proving that respondents were not dismissed from employment. Respondents even failed to prove the fact of their dismissal. The company also argued that respondents' displacement was brought about by their failure to update their government-issued clearances. Respondents were ineligible for reassignment to new posts because their government-issued clearances are expired or near expiry. Aside from failure of respondents to undergo the required interview and orientation, Kaizen claimed that the renewal of respondents' government-issued clearances was imposed by the client DOTC-MRT3, as well as other government entities which contract security services. 48

The company also claimed that it is unfair and unacceptable to immediately declare the lapse of the six-month period of floating status as a case of constructive dismissal. It is important to look into the peculiar circumstances that resulted in the security guard's failure to assume another post. Kaizen argued that there is proof that respondents abandoned their employment. Kaizen reiterated its argument that respondents were already working for different security agencies as early as February 2016 or on dates prior the expiration of the six-month floating status period. Respondents are with another employer before the lapse of the six-month period preventing them to report for work with Kaizen and assume other posts. As they are with a different employer, this is an indication that respondents have severed employment with the company. Respondents' filing of the illegal dismissal complaint cannot be the sole consideration to negate abandonment. Thus, backwages should not be awarded to respondents. Furthermore, Section 9.3 of DOLE Department Order No. 014-1 49 provides that security guards on reserved status, who accept another employment within the six-month period may not be given separation pay. 50

Respondents' Arguments

In their Comment, 51 respondents argued that the petition should be dismissed outright as the issues raised by Kaizen are factual in nature. An appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court require that only questions of law be raised because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. All factual findings of the appellate courts are final and binding or conclusive on the parties. 52 Nonetheless, respondents argued that Kaizen failed to show reversible error on the part of the CA in rendering the assailed Decision. 53 Contrary to Kaizen's position that respondents did not comply with the company's order to return, respondents claimed that they personally reported to the main office of Kaizen to submit their renewed clearances. Despite their compliance, they were informed by the president that their services will no longer be retained. Furthermore, if it were true that respondents did not return to work, they should have been individually subjected to administrative or legal action as stated in the Orders to Return issued by the company. Relatedly, Kaizen failed to subject respondents to disciplinary actions for supposed insubordination or willful disobedience to the directive of submitting renewed government-issued clearances. 54

As to their employment with other security agencies within the six-month period of floating status, respondents argued that the same should be disregarded as such was raised for the first time in the Motion for Reconsideration before the CA. Due process could not be afforded to them. In fact, it was not even raised with the labor tribunals. Thus, higher courts are precluded from entertaining matters neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below. Even if respondents have secured employment while awaiting new postings from Kaizen, the same cannot be taken against them especially because they had been informed by the company that their services will no longer be retained. Their alternative employment is insufficient proof that they abandoned employment with Kaizen. They were forced to seek employment during the off-detail period to sustain their needs. 55

Finally, the company's claim of respondents' ineligibility for new job assignments cannot be given credence. Respondents were relieved from the posts because they were deployed by Kaizen without MRT3's knowledge and not due to expired or near expiry clearances. Respondents point out that they were deliberately sidelined from duty for more than six months, which constitutes constructive dismissal. 56

Ruling of the Court

Generally, questions of fact are beyond the ambit of a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court because such remedy is limited to reviewing only questions of law. 57 However, the rule admits of exceptions, particularly, when the findings of fact of the lower tribunals are conflicting. 58 In this case, the LA and NLRC dismissed the labor complaints of respondents for their failure to show constructive dismissal. Whereas, the CA opined otherwise. Clearly, the present petition falls under the exception allowing this Court to take cognizance of the case.

The practice of placing security guards on floating status, or when an employee is made to wait after being relieved from a previous post to be transferred to a new one, 59 is a valid exercise of management prerogative. 60 The company can assign or transfer its employees where their services are determined to be most beneficial to the client, provided that the transfer is done with good faith and there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges. 61

Here, Kaizen recalled the seven respondents from their posts on January 21, 2016. 62 As to respondent Marcellana, Kaizen placed him on AWOL and dropped him from the rolls on March 16, 2016. 63 Applying the principle discussed above, respondents were placed on floating status. While the company may exercise its management prerogative to place respondents on floating status, the employees cannot be in such position indefinitely. Article 292 (previously Article 286) 64 of the Labor Code of the Philippines has been applied by analogy to set the floating status to a maximum of six months. 65 After six months, the employees should either be recalled to work or permanently retrenched following the requirements of the law. Failure to comply with this may be considered as constructive dismissal of the employee. 66 Kaizen argued that respondents' floating status for more than six months is attributable to their abandonment for failure to return to work despite notice. The company also explained that the seven respondents could not be reassigned without submitting their government-issued clearances to the company. Thus, there is no illegal or constructive dismissal. We do not agree.

Kaizen does not dispute the significance of the six-month floating status period in relation to respondents' employment. In fact, it issued Orders to Return 67 to respondents within 6 months from their recall. Based on the company's arguments, it knew that without respondents' returning to work or the seven respondents' submission of necessary government clearances, no assignment can be given to them. Despite the foregoing, Kaizen did not subject respondents to disciplinary action, or at the very least, another order to return to work again. To Our mind, Kaizen's omission negates good faith in allowing respondents to remain in floating status beyond six months. ETHIDa

We also cannot sustain Kaizen's position that respondents abandoned employment. To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. Mere absence from employment is insufficient. The employer has the burden of proof to show a deliberate and unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning. 68 In this case, other than absence from work, We find no showing of unjustified refusal on the part of respondents to resume employment. In fact, prior the illegal dismissal case, respondents filed a complaint for money claims against Kaizen within six months of their off-detail status. The complaint for money claims is merely a protest relating to their salaries and benefits. It cannot be considered a clear indication of severance of the employer-employee relationship. If Kaizen truly believed that respondents abandoned their employment, the company could have easily notified them in said money claims proceedings to return to work. Yet, We find no such proof or allegation. To reiterate, Kaizen did not administratively discipline respondents for the latter's failure to return to work nor to formally dismiss them for abandonment. As observed by NLRC in its Decision 69 dated May 31, 2017, Kaizen "just waited for the floating status of the [employees] to lapse x x x conveniently supposing that they have already 'abandoned' their jobs." 70 Additionally, the instant illegal dismissal complaint contradicts abandonment.

We are inclined to lend credence to respondents' position that they were forced to look for temporary employment as they were not given any assignment during their off-detail status. In the proceedings for money claims complaint, Kaizen offered to pay, as settlement, P20,000.00 to each respondent which includes severance pay. The offer for settlement and respondents' prolonged floating status confirms Our conclusion that Kaizen did not act with good faith in placing respondents on floating status for more than six months.

We hold that respondents are constructively dismissed from employment. As discussed, the seven respondents were relieved from their posts on January 21, 2016 while Marcellana was relieved from his post on March 16, 2016. No notice to return to work or no employment had been offered to them within six months from such time. We find that it was only after the LA Decision that the company sent Orders to Report 71 dated October 12, 2017 for purposes of reassignment, which also lacked the specific duty detail. All eight respondents were clearly placed on floating status beyond the period mandated by law.

In view of their illegal dismissal, respondents are entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, full backwages, and other privileges and benefits computed from the time compensation was withheld from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement. 72 Considering the lapse of time from respondents' dismissal and their allegation of strained relations with the company, We find respondents' reinstatement impractical and hold that payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is more proper. We cannot sustain Kaizen's position that respondents may no longer receive separation pay for securing new employment during their reserved status pursuant to Section 9.3 of DOLE Department Order No. 014-01. 73 This section finds no application in the instant case as it presupposes that the employees in floating status will be redeployed within six months because the security guards were on "reserved status." 74 Here, and as discussed, We find that Kaizen had no intention to re-assign respondents to new posts, placing the latter on floating status for more than six months.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 13, 2019 in CA-G.R. SP No. 154601 reinstating the Decision dated May 31, 2017 of the National Labor Relations Commission is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that petitioner Kaizen Security Agency Corporation is ORDERED to pay respondents:

1) Backwages reckoned from the seven respondents' dismissal on January 21, 2016 until finality of this Decision:

a) Backwages reckoned from respondent Wilson P. Marcellana's dismissal on March 16, 2016 until finality of this Decision;

2) Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to one (1) month's pay for every year of service until the finality of this Decision;

3) Respondents' salary, except Wilson P. Marcellana, amounting to P1,572.00 each for the three-day on-the-job training; and

4) The amount equivalent to 10% of their total monetary awards, as and for attorney's fees;

5) All amounts shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full payment.

The case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the proper computation of the judgment award in favor of respondents. cSEDTC

The petitioner's: (a) compliance and manifestation stating the material dates of receipt of the assailed decision, filing of motion for reconsideration thereof, date of receipt of the assailed resolution, and date of filing of motion for extension to file petition for review on certiorari; and (b) reply (to the comment of private respondents), stating that private respondents are not entitled to separation pay, and by reason of their utter bad faith, as shown in the petition, private respondents deserve no compassion in law and in equity, are both NOTED; the Court of Appeals is hereby DELETED as party respondent in this case pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 10-31.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi; id. at 35-50.

3.Id. at 51-54.

4.Id. at 12-13, 36.

5.Id. at 65.

6.Id.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 64.

9.Id. at 66.

10.Id. at 67.

11.Id. at 55.

12.Id. at 126-134.

13.Id. at 67.

14.Id. at 56-61.

15.Id. at 67.

16.Id. at 62.

17.Id.

18.Id. at 63.

19.Id. at 68.

20. Penned by Labor Arbiter Vivian Magsino-Gonzalez; id. at 64-72.

21.Id. at 70.

22.Id. at 70-72.

23.Id. at 114-121.

24.Id. at 125.

25.Id.

26. Penned by Commissioner Bernardino B. Julve, with the concurrence of Commissioner Leonard Vinz O. Ignacio and Presiding Commissioner Grace M. Venus; id. at 73-98.

27.Id. at 87.

28.Id. at 88-89.

29.Id. at 90-91.

30.Id. at 97.

31.Id. at 107-108.

32.Id. at 101-113.

33.Id. at 110.

34.Id. at 109-112.

35.Id. at 111.

36.Id.

37.Id. at 111-112.

38.Supra note 2.

39.Rollo, p. 49.

40. 811 Phil. 250 (2017).

41.Id. at 260; supra note 2 at 46-47.

42.Rollo, pp. 46-49.

43.Id. at 48-49.

44.Id. at 52.

45.Supra note 3.

46.Rollo, pp. 52-53.

47.Id. at 18-20.

48.Id. at 22-24.

49. Department of Labor and Employment, Department Order No. 14, Series of 2001, Guidelines Governing the Employment and Working Conditions of Security Guards and Similar Personnel in the Private Security Industry.

50.Rollo, pp. 24-30.

51.Id. at 160-187.

52.Id. at 160-163.

53.Id. at 164.

54.Id. at 170-171.

55.Id. at 172-176.

56.Id. at 178-183.

57.Supra note 40 at 256.

58.Id.; see Padilla v. Airborne Security Service, Inc., 821 Phil. 482, 487-488 (2017), citing Tatel v. JLFP Investigation Security Agency, Inc., 755 Phil. 171, 181 (2015).

59.Tatel v. JLFP Investigation Security Agency, Inc., 755 Phil. 171, 182-183 (2015), citing Salvaloza v. National Labor Relations Commission, 650 Phil. 543, 557 (2010).

60.Salvaloza v. National Labor Relations Commission, 650 Phil. 543, 557 (2010).

61.Exocet Security and Allied Services Corp. v. Serrano, 744 Phil. 403, 420 (2014).

62.Rollo, p. 65.

63.Id. at 63.

64. Article 292. When employment not deemed terminated. — The bona-fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or the fulfillment by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not terminate employment. In all such cases, the employer shall reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not later than one (1) month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty.

65.Agro Commercial Security Services Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, 256 Phil. 1182, 1188 (1989).

66.Supra note 60 at 557-558.

67.Rollo, pp. 56-61, 63.

68.Tatel v. JLFP Investigation Security Agency, Inc., supra note 59 at 184.

69.Supra note 26.

70.Rollo, p. 94.

71.Id. at 125.

72. Article 294 [279]. Security of tenure. — In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

73. Guidelines Governing the Employment and Working Conditions of Security Guards and Similar Personnel in the Private Security Industry.

74.Rollo, p. 27.