THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256575. September 29, 2021.]
PETRONILLO S. LIANG, complainant, vs.KNIGHT HAWK SECURITY FORCE, INC. AND LORETO M. ZARA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 256575 (Petronillo S. Liang v. Knight Hawk Security Force, Inc. and Loreto M. Zara). — This resolves the petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Resolution 2 dated July 28, 2020 and Resolution 3 dated May 17, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Sixth Division, in CA-G.R. SP No. 156390. Petronillo S. Liang (Liang) filed a petition for certiorari4 before the CA assailing the Decision 5 dated March 20, 2018 and Resolution 6 dated April 25, 2018 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The CA granted the Motion to Dismiss because the Quitclaim and Release 7 dated December 6, 2018 satisfied the NLRC's judgment award in full and rendered the petition before the CA moot and academic. 8
The Antecedents
Clenio B. Benitez (Benitez) and Liang filed a complaint for non-payment/underpayment of salaries, overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, rest day pay, 13th month pay, and other money claims, refund of cash bond, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees against Knight Hawk Security Force, Inc. (Knight Hawk) and Loreto M. Zara (Zara), the company's president. 9
Benitez and Liang alleged that Knight Hawk hired them as security guards. For a 12-hour duty, they were paid a salary of PHP350.00 a day, which was increased to PHP481.00 in 2017. They claim that they have not received any overtime pay and 13th month pay, except for the year 2015 when they received 13th month pay. 10
In 2015, they were assigned to secure one of the clients of Knight Hawk: the premises of LBC Properties (LBC) in Binondo, Manila. Benitez began work on the LBC premises on January 2, 2015 while Liang began work on March 7, 2015. On July 4, 2017, Benitez and Liang reported for work at LBC but were replaced by relievers. 11
On the other hand, Knight Hawk alleged that in June 2017, Mr. Robert Sabucido and Engr. Cesar Licud, the Administrative Officer and Administrator of LBC, respectively, requested Knight Hawk to immediately replace Benitez and Liang due to poor work performance. Zara approved the request of LBC. Consequently, Benitez and Liang were ordered to report to the main office for re-assignment and further instructions through Dennis B. Arevalo, the SVP Operations Manager of Knight Hawk. Neither Benitez nor Liang appeared at the main office. Knight Hawk sent them individual Notices to Report through registered mail dated July 11 and July 19, 2017, where each was required to explain why no administrative sanctions should be imposed. Knight Hawk received, instead, a Notice of Conference from the National Capital Region Arbitration Branch, Single Entry Approach (SENA) requiring them to attend the mediation conference. 12
During the mandatory conference, Knight Hawk claimed that it was their client LBC which requested for the replacement of Benitez and Liang. Knight Hawk further claimed to have sent notices for Benitez and Liang to proceed to the main office for reinstatement. Benitez and Liang refused such offers to be reinstated. Instead, each made a counter-offer to settle the labor case: the amount of PHP374,970.00 for Petronillo's case and PHP452,320.00 for Benitez's case. Knight Hawk refused. 13 CAIHTE
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
On November 28, 2017, the Labor Arbiter (LA), Hon. Rosalina Maria O. Apita-Battung, dismissed the case for lack of merit. 14 However, the LA ordered Knight Hawk to pay the total amount of PHP27,496.00, representing the individual salaries of Benitez and Liang for the work period of June 16-30, 2017 and proportionate 13th month pay for the year 2017. Additionally, the LA ordered Knight Hawk to refund the cash bond posted by Benitez and Liang. All other claims were dismissed for lack of substantial evidence. 15
Unsatisfied, Liang filed an appeal before the NLRC to seek the payment of underpaid wages, overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, refund of cash bond, damages and attorney's fees. 16
Ruling of the NLRC
NLRC RULING
On March 20, 2018, the NLRC Sixth Division promulgated a Decision 17 that partly granted the appeal. Knight Hawk was directed to pay Liang his salary differentials in the amount of PHP39,290.68 and attorney's fees, equivalent to 10% of the total judgment award. The other awards in the Decision of the LA were sustained. 18
On April 4, 2018, Liang moved for reconsideration, where he (1) argued the veracity of his Daily Time Records (DTRs), even if these were not signed by the Knight Hawk officials, and (2) asserted that Knight Hawk acted in bad faith for not properly paying his wages, overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay, for which he is entitled to moral and exemplary damages. 19
On April 25, 2018, the NLRC issued a Resolution 20 denying the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
Aggrieved, Liang filed a petition for certiorari21 before the CA.
Meanwhile, during the pre-execution conferences held on November 27, 2018 and December 6, 2018, the LA explained to the parties the computation of the award based on the LA's Decision as affirmed by the NLRC Decision. Liang was assisted by his counsel, Atty. Chrizellie Almendral, from the Public Attorney's Office (PAO). As evidenced by a Quitclaim and Release 22 dated December 6, 2018, Liang received the total amount of FIFTY-THREE THOUSAND THIRTY-EIGHT and 68/100 PESOS (PHP53,038.68). 23 An official receipt was also issued by the PAO for Knight Hawk's payment of attorney's fees in the amount of FIVE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED and 86/100 PESOS (PHP5,303.86). 24 The payment of the judgment award was made before the LA. Liang voluntarily accepted the payment and "release(d) and discharge(d) the said company and its officers from any/all claims by way of unpaid wages, separation pay, overtime pay, differential pay or otherwise as may be due me/us in connection with my past employment with said establishment and its office." 25
Knight Hawk filed a Motion to Dismiss 26 before the CA. 27
In his Comment dated June 26, 2019, Liang, represented by PAO, prayed for the denial of the Motion to Dismiss. It was asserted that the cash bond refund was not included in the computation of the judgment award. Likewise, the payment of the 10% attorney's fees to the PAO was insufficient because the basis of the computation did not include the cash bond refund. 28
Ruling of the CA
On July 28, 2020, the CA granted Knight Hawk's Motion to Dismiss, holding that the Quitclaim and Release executed by Liang, assisted by counsel, showed that the judgment award had been fully satisfied, rendering the petition before the CA moot and academic. 29
On September 11, 2020, Liang moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied in a Resolution 30 dated May 17, 2021.
Issue
Did the CA correctly grant Knight Hawk's Motion to Dismiss based on the Quitclaim and Release dated December 6, 2018 signed by Liang?
Our Ruling
The resolution of this principal issue hinges on whether the Quitclaim and Release is valid. If it is, then the CA correctly granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by Knight Hawk since the judgment award has been fully satisfied, rendering the petition for certiorari moot and academic. If not, the CA should have adjudicated the petition for certiorari.
In the instant petition, Liang questions the validity of the proceedings undertaken before the LA and the resulting Quitclaim and Release. First, he claims that it is only a partial execution pending his petition for certiorari before the CA; that the LA erred in allowing the parties to further compromise on an amount other than and beyond what was granted in the NLRC Decision. Second, he argues that he was not properly assisted by a lawyer during the actual computation of the said award, which was held on November 27, 2018. Atty. Almendral was present only on December 6, 2018 during the payment of the judgment award, which was based on the final computation made by the LA on November 27, 2018. 31 DETACa
As to the first line of argument, we rule that the proceedings before the LA was not a partial execution. As admitted by Liang in his petition, 32 the proceedings were undertaken pursuant to Section 6, Rule IX of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, which states:
Section 6. Pre-Execution Conference. — Within two (2) working days from receipt of a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution which shall be accompanied by a computation of a judgment award, if necessary, the Commission or the Labor Arbiter may schedule a pre-execution conference to thresh out matters relevant to execution including final computation of monetary award. The pre-execution conference shall not exceed fifteen (15) calendar days from the initial schedule, unless the parties agreed to an extension. (Emphasis supplied)
To reiterate, the judgment award at the time of the proceedings was based on the NLRC Decision, which included both the awards in the LA Decision and the NLRC's own modifications. Hence, the scope of the pre-execution conference was:
(a) The awards in the LA's Decision:
(i) the individual salaries of Benitez and Liang for the work period of June 16-30, 2017;
(ii) proportionate 13th month pay for the year 2017; and
(iii) refund the cash bond of Benitez and Liang.
(b) the modifications in the NLRC's Decision:
(i) salary differentials in the amount of PHP39,290.68; and
(ii) attorney's fees, equivalent to 10% of the total judgment award.
If there was any error in the final computation made by the LA, Liang had the opportunity to question this during the conferences held on November 27, 2018 and December 6, 2018, and even the time in-between. This was the precise objective of the pre-execution conference: to thresh out matters relevant to the execution including the final computation of the monetary award. It is Liang himself who failed to exercise and protect his rights.
As to the second line of argument, we rule that Liang's assertion that he was not properly assisted by a lawyer is irrelevant to the validity of the Quitclaim and Release. Liang himself quoted the relevant jurisprudence on the matter:
Indeed, '[the] presence or absence of counsel when a waiver is executed does not determine its validity. There is no law requiring the presence of a counsel to validate a waiver. The test is whether it was executed voluntarily, freely, and intelligently; and whether the consideration for it was credible and reasonable. Where there is clear proof that a waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or a gullible person, the law must step in to annual such transaction. 33 (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, Liang failed to present any evidence to show that his consent has been vitiated or that the waiver was wangled from him as an unsuspecting or gullible person.
In the conference, any agreement that would settle the final judgment in a particular manner is necessarily a compromise. 34 A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties make reciprocal concessions in order to resolve their differences and thus avoid or put an end to a lawsuit. 35 We uphold the CA's ruling that "by accepting the aforesaid amount and executing the Quitclaim and Release, Liang was putting an end to the controversy between the parties." 36
The Quitclaim and Waiver dated December 6, 2018 was valid. According to its stipulations, Liang voluntarily accepted the payment and released and discharged Knight Hawk from any and all claims and interposes no objection to the withdrawal of his petition filed before the Court of Appeals. 37 Therefore, the Court of Appeals was correct in granting Knight Hawk's motion to dismiss.
However, as to the Liang's claim for the refund of his cash bond, there is sufficient evidence to uphold the ruling that Knight Hawk is liable to refund Liang's claim for cash bond. By the evidence on record, both parties recognize the existence of an amount of One Hundred Pesos (PHP100.00) deducted by Knight Hawk from the bi-monthly salary of Liang under the category of "cash bond." On the other hand, there was an admission made by Knight Hawk in its Respondent's Position Paper38 filed before the NLRC, which states:
F. Complainants will be reimbursed of their cash bond after they have accomplished their clearances
A cash bond is deducted from the salary of a security guard to answer for his unpaid accountabilities should he leave the company without filing the proper resignation and accomplishing a clearance. This measure is adopted by the company to protect its interest as there are (sic) number of cases that a certain guard who made cash advances from the company suddenly left without notice. This practice is made known and agreed to by the Complainants prior to their employment. aDSIHc
It is the duty of the Complainants to accomplish their clearance which will be Respondent Knight Hawk's basis for the release of their last pay and cash bond. Their clearance will show that they are free from any indebtedness or obligation to Respondent Knight Hawk during their employment and that they have not committed any omission or lapse in the discharge of their functions that will cause harm or damage to Respondent Knight Hawk or its client where they have been assigned. Subsequent (sic) said cash bond will be reimbursed to him by Respondent Knight Hawk. 39
Furthermore, the LA's Decision 40 dated November 28, 2017 mentioned Liang's entitlement to the refund of his cash bond, stating:
Complainants are also entitled to a refund of their individual cash bonds. However, the amount of cash bond was not specified, leaving this Arbitration Branch in the dark as to the exact amount of cash bond deducted from their salaries. 41
Thus, since the cash bond — duly supported by the pay slips presented in evidence and admitted by Knight Hawk — is considered Liang's own money which was merely deposited with Knight Hawk for the duration of his employment, Knight Hawk is liable for its refund.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Resolution dated July 28, 2020 and Resolution dated May 17, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 156390 are hereby AFFIRMED.
This case is remanded to the National Labor Relations Commission for computation of the cash bond to be refunded by Knight Hawk Security Force, Inc. to Petronillo S. Liang.
SO ORDERED." (Leonen, J., on official leave; Dimaampao, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2839 dated September 16, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 14-29.
2.Id. at 38-42. The July 28, 2020 CA Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. with the concurrence of Associate Justices Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr.
3.Id. at 44-45. The May 17, 2021 CA Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justices Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr.
4.Id. at 46-61.
5.Id. at 64-75. The March 20, 2018 NLRC Decision was penned by Commissioner Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra, with the concurrence of Presiding Commissioner Joseph Gerard E. Mabilog.
6.Id. at 77-78. The April 25, 2018 NLRC Resolution was penned by Commissioner Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra, with the concurrence of Presiding Commissioner Joseph Gerard E. Mabilog.
7.Id. at 237.
8.Id. at 38.
9.Id. at 80-83, and 195.
10.Id. at 196.
11.Ibid.
12.Ibid.
13.Id. at 197.
14.Id. at 195-199.
15.Id. at 199. The computation of the awards for Benitez and Liang is as follows:
|
Unclaimed salaries (PHP491.00 x 15 days) |
PHP7,365.00 |
|
13th month pay (PHP491.00 x 26 x 6/12) |
PHP6,383.00 |
|
TOTAL |
PHP13,748.00 |
16.Id. at 64.
17.Supra note 5.
18.Rollo, p. 74.
19.Id. at 78.
20.Supra note 6.
21.Supra note 4.
22.Supra note 7.
23.Rollo, p. 38.
24.Ibid.
25.Id. at 237.
26. Incorporated in its Manifestation in lieu of Memorandum before the CA. See rollo, pp. 230-235.
27.Id. at 38.
28.Id. at 39.
29.Id. at 41.
30.Supra note 3.
31.Rollo, p. 23.
32.Id. at 22.
33.Id. at 23, citing Magbanua v. Uy, 497 Phil. 511, 513-514 (2005).
34.Magbanua v. Uy, 497 Phil. 511, 512 (2005).
35.Ibid., citing Article 2028 of the Civil Code.
36.Rollo, p. 41.
37.Id. at 39.
38.Id. at 122-131.
39.Id. at 129.
40.Id. at 195.
41.Id. at 196.