Reyes, Jr. v. G4S Vallum Security Services Corp.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252436. September 29, 2021.]

REMEGIO B. REYES, JR., petitioner, vs.G4S VALLUM SECURITY SERVICES CORPORATION, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 252436 (Remegio B. Reyes, Jr. v. G4S Vallum Security Services Corporation). — The instant Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court arose from the execution of the money award in favor of petitioner Remegio B. Reyes, Jr. (Reyes) in an illegal dismissal case against respondent G4S Vallum Security Services Corporation (VSSC).

Proceedings for the Illegal Dismissal Case

Reyes, with other colleagues namely, Cesar Cabriole, Erano Sibulo, and Felicemo De Lapaz, filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter (LA) for constructive dismissal, non-payment of labor benefits and illegal deduction from their salaries. The employees claim that they were placed by VSSC on floating status for more than six months without any job detail as security guards. 2 The LA, in its Decision 3 dated June 30, 2016, dismissed the labor complaint. Reyes, Cabriole and Sibulo were ordered to return to work. De Lapaz was no longer made a party to the case because he agreed to the payment of his separation pay during the pendency of the labor proceedings and executed a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim in favor of VSSC. The labor arbiter, however, awarded payment of the 13th month pay benefit to Reyes, Cabriole and Sibulo from January 1 to August 6, 2014. The LA computed the judgment award using the salary rate of P24,000.00 per month as its basis. 4

Pursuant to the LA Decision, VSSC sent out return to work notices to the employees, including, Reyes, who received the same through his representative Teresa Reyes on August 6, 2016. 5 cTDaEH

Meanwhile, the employees appealed the Decision of the LA to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In a Decision 6 dated September 27, 2016, the NLRC affirmed the LA Decision. The employees then filed a partial motion for reconsideration arguing that they were illegally dismissed and are entitled to their other money claims. In a Resolution 7 dated October 27, 2016, the NLRC modified its decision holding that Cabriole, Reyes and De La Paz were constructively dismissed and are entitled to payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and backwages. The NLRC found that Sibulo actually received the return to work notices in the period of August to September 2014. Hence, he is not illegally dismissed from employment and should return to work. 8

VSSC then moved to reconsider the NLRC Resolution dated October 27, 2016. The NLRC, in a Resolution 9 dated January 23, 2017, modified its previous resolution and held that Reyes was the only employee constructively dismissed because the tenor of notices sent to him could not be considered return to work notices. As to Cabriole, the September 27, 2016 NLRC Decision attained finality for his failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration, while De La Paz was no longer a party to the case because he entered in a settlement agreement with VSSC, received payment of separation pay and executed a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim in favor of the company. 10 The employees filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution dated March 31, 2017. 11 Cabriole and Sibulo filed their respective Petitions for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA). VSSC also filed a separate Petition for Certiorari with the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 149232.

As no injunction had been issued by the Court of Appeals, the March 31, 2017 NLRC Resolution affirming Reyes's illegal dismissal became final and executory. An Entry of Judgment was issued dated May 15, 2017. 12 On June 2, 2017, Reyes moved for the issuance of the Writ of Execution and Computation. 13 Conferences and hearings were scheduled for purposes of the computation of Reyes's monetary award, but VSSC failed to appear and file its respective comment on the recommended computation provided by the NLRC Computation Unit. 14 On August 31, 2017, the LA issued a Writ of Execution 15 directing VSSC to pay the separation pay and backwages of Reyes amounting to P993,600.00.

Proceedings assailing the Writ of Execution dated August 31, 2017

VSSC filed a Petition for Extraordinary Remedy 16 under Rule XII of the NLRC Rules of Procedure. The company argues that the award in favor of Reyes was bloated. The computation of the money award was without basis as it had been pegged at a monthly salary rate amounting to P24,000.00. However, Reyes's daily wage amounts to only P451.00 or at P11,726.00 per month exclusive of ECOLA. Thus, VSSC's total liability shall only be P497,840.00 representing Reyes's backwages, separation pay and the 13th month benefit pay of Cabriole and Sibulo.

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission

In a Resolution 17 dated November 22, 2017, the NLRC agreed with VSSC that the computation of separation pay and backwages pegged at P24,000.00 per month was incorrect. Review of the payslips show that Reyes receives a monthly salary amounting to P12,116.00 including ECOLA. Thus, Reyes's backwages and separation pay must be computed using said amount as basis. The NLRC also held that since Reyes's salary was based on the minimum wage rate, any increase in the minimum wage rate must be factored in the computation as such increase automatically accrues to Reyes's benefit had he not been illegally dismissed from employment. The NLRC further held that all other labor benefits, including ECOLA, must be included in the computation of backwages. cHDAIS

The NLRC also observed that the LA omitted in the computation the award of the 13th month pay benefit to employees Cabriole and Sibulo. In the Decision dated June 30, 2016, the LA awarded Cabriole and Sibulo payment of the 13th month pay benefit for the period of January 1, 2014 to August 6, 2014 amounting to P14,400.00 each. Considering that VSSC did not appeal such money award, the liability of VSSC had already become final. As to Reyes's 13th month pay benefit, the NLRC provided a computation based on his daily salary rate from the time of his illegal dismissal until May 6, 2017, which is the finality of the Resolution dated March 31, 2017 of the NLRC in the illegal dismissal case.

As to the award of separation pay, the NLRC held the computation shall be reckoned from the start of Reyes's employment on March 15, 2010 until May 6, 2017, the rate to be used for computation shall be the salary prevailing at the time Reyes was separated from employment or at P491.00/day. Six percent legal interest per annum reckoned from May 6, 2017 shall also be computed and paid to Reyes. Finally, the NLRC ordered the LA to set aside the Writ of Execution dated August 31, 2017 and to issue a new writ:

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Writ of Execution dated 31 August 2017 issued by Labor Arbiter Celso Virgilio C. Ylagan, IV is hereby SET ASIDE. The Labor Arbiter is thus directed to immediately issue a new Writ of Execution awarding the following:

1. Cesar B. Carbiola's n thirteenth month pay in the amount of Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred Pesos (P14,400.00);

2. Erano V. Sibulo's thirteenth month pay in the amount of Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred Pesos (P14,400.00);

3. Remegio Reyes, Jr.'s

a. thirteenth month pay in the amount of FOURTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED PESOS (P14,400.00);

b. backwages in the sum of FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY PESOS AND 57/100 (P453,660.57); and

c. separation pay of EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO PESOS (P89,362.00) and

4. Legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum on the total judgment award computed from the finality of the NLRC Decision on 6 May 2017 until its full satisfaction.

SO ORDERED. 18 (Emphasis in the original) DHITCc

On reconsideration, 19 VSSC argued that the backwages of Reyes should only be computed until August 4, 2016 or the date the company sent a Return to Work Notice to Reyes pursuant to the Decision dated June 30, 2016 of the LA. In its Resolution 20 dated December 28, 2017, the NLRC denied the prayer, holding that it was never raised as an issue and is therefore not cognizable in the present petition. The NLRC also held that upon review of records there is nothing to prove that return to work notices had indeed been issued, duly sent and received by Reyes.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

VSSC filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the CA. On November 20, 2019, the CA rendered its Decision 21 granting VSSC's petition. The CA agrees with VSSC that computation of Reyes's backwages should be adjusted until August 6, 2016 and not until May 6, 2017. The CA held that the NLRC disregarded the evidence of VSSC showing that Reyes received on August 6, 2016 a return to work notice pursuant to the Decision dated June 30, 2016 of the LA, which ordered Reyes's reinstatement. While this issue was not raised in VSSC's Petition for Extraordinary Remedy, the CA held that new issues or pieces of evidence may be considered in order to better serve the administrative justice. Further, rules may be liberally applied.

Proceedings before this Court

Petitioner's Arguments

Unsatisfied with the Decision of the CA, Reyes filed before this Court an appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court arguing that the issue on the Return to Work Order was never raised in the Petition for Extraordinary Remedy filed with the NLRC. Such issue was raised for the first time in the Motion for Reconsideration filed with the NLRC. Reyes argued that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body need not be considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time at a late stage. This is in compliance with the basic consideration of fairness and due process. In any case, VSSC's issuance of the Return to Work Order would still not stop the running of the period for the computation of backwages and separation pay. The notice sent to Reyes made no mention of where he will be assigned or detailed. The DOLE rules for security agencies require that there be a Duty Detail Order providing for the specifics on where and what are duties entailed in the assignment or post. Here, the Return to Work Order is not a Duty Detail Order. 22

Finally, Reyes maintains that he was constructively dismissed. The issuance of the Return to Work Order was pursuant to the LA Decision dated June 30, 2016 finding that Reyes was validly dismissed. In said Decision, the LA ordered reinstatement. However, the LA's order for reinstatement had become moot as it was subsequently reversed by the NLRC finding that Reyes was constructively dismissed from employment. 23 IAETDc

Respondent's Arguments

In its Comment, 24 VSSC argues that Reyes failed to specify and identify the patent error committed by the CA. Furthermore, Reyes's arguments are mere repetitions of statements which have been thoroughly discussed by the CA. Thus, the instant petition should be dismissed outright. 25

Contrary to Reyes's position, VSSC argues that the CA may consider newly raised issues or pieces of evidence as the entire case is open for review. Nevertheless, VSSC claims that it has sufficiently proven that a Return to Work Order was received by Reyes on August 6, 2016. Further, proof of mailing and proof of receipt by Reyes's representative had been previously appended to the company's Compliance filed with the LA pursuant to its Decision dated June 30, 2016. 26

Anent Reyes's argument that the Return to Work Order lacked a Duty Detail Order, VSSC claims that it is not required to offer deployment to Reyes prior his compliance with the employment requirements. Furthermore, a Duty Detail Order is not a pre-requisite to prove an offer of deployment. This becomes a requirement only upon commencement of deployment of the security guard. 27

Ruling of the Court

This Court exercises its judicial discretion to take cognizance of the petition finding that both the CA and the NLRC have so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings and applicable decisions of this Court. 28

For starters, the CA erred in modifying the end period for computation of backwages from May 6, 2017 to August 6, 2016. The date, August 6, 2016, was when Reyes received the Return to Work Order issued by VSSC in compliance to an order for his reinstatement in the June 30, 2016 LA Decision finding no illegal dismissal. VSSC is of the position that backwages shall be computed until such time for failure of Reyes to actually return to work. This Court is unconvinced.

The Decision dated June 30, 2016 of the LA had eventually been overturned by the NLRC in its Resolution dated January 23, 2017 finding constructive dismissal and ordering VSSC to pay separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. This finding was maintained in the Resolution dated March 31, 2017 of the NLRC denying VSSC's partial motion for reconsideration. Notably, the foregoing NLRC Resolution attained finality on May 6, 2017 in the absence of any injunction order from higher tribunals. The LA then issued the Writ of Execution dated August 31, 2017 pursuant to the final NLRC Resolution. As the NLRC Resolution settled the issue that Reyes was illegally dismissed, the directive for reinstatement, in the Decision dated June 30, 2016 of the LA, on the basis that there is no illegal dismissal is abandoned. Thus, Reyes's receipt of VSSC's Return to Work Order on August 6, 2016 pursuant to the Decision dated June 30, 2016 of the LA is immaterial for purposes of computation of the backwages. This Court finds that the LA correctly computed Reyes's backwages from the time of his illegal dismissal on July 31, 2014 until finality of the Resolution dated May 6, 2017 of the NLRC. The period identified by the LA for computation even beyond August 6, 2016 is based on the principle that the employer-employee relationship still subsists and does not remove the employee from entitlement to payment of backwages and other benefits. 29 SaCIDT

Next, this Court also finds that the CA erred in affirming the NLRC Resolution dated November 22, 2017 modifying the value of Reyes's monthly salary from P24,000.00 to P12,116.00 in the computation of his money award. On record, the June 30, 2016 LA Decision ordered payment of 13th month pay benefits to Reyes, Cabriole and Sibulo. The LA computed the 13th month pay benefit for all three employees using the monthly salary rate amounting to P24,000.00. VSSC did not dispute the employees' allegation of the P24,000.00 monthly salary rate in its Position Paper 30 filed with the LA. The company also did not raise, on appeal, as an issue the computation of the 13th month pay benefit to the three employees. It was also not raised in its Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed with the NLRC in the illegal dismissal case. Therefore, in so far as VSSC is concerned, the figures used in the computation for the award of the 13th month pay benefit, specifically, the monthly salary rate amounting to P24,000.00 attained finality. In this sense, VSSC did not dispute that the three employees, specifically, Reyes, earned a monthly salary amounting to P24,000.00. Accordingly, in the execution proceedings, the LA's computation for Reyes's money award using the monthly salary rate of P24,000.00 is proper.

VSSC cannot be favored in belatedly raising this issue in its Petition for Extraordinary Remedy as it violates the principle of immutability of final judgments. It is settled that a final judgment may no longer be altered, amended or modified, even if the alteration, amendment or modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law and regardless of what court renders it. 31 The Court stresses that VSSC assails the computation rendered by the LA in the execution proceedings, which presupposes that a judgment attained finality. Therefore, questions or issues relating to a decision or ruling declaring the status and of the rights, obligations and monetary consequences that flow from the declared status, such as, the payment of separation pay and backwages 32 are no longer proper matters to be raised in the execution proceedings in this case, in the Petition for Extraordinary Remedies filed by VSSC. The nature of computation and recomputation in the execution proceedings is to primarily implement the declaratory finding on the status, rights and obligation of the parties therein. 33 The computation or recomputation required to reflect full satisfaction does not constitute an alteration or amendment of the final decision being implemented as the illegal dismissal ruling stands. 34 Thus, the CA erred in affirming the NLRC's modification to an already final decision as to the value of Reyes's salary for computation of his money award.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated November 20, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 154838 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION on the basis of the discussions above. Petitioner Remegio B. Reyes, Jr.'s money award shall be computed guided by the following:

a) Backwages shall be based on the monthly salary rate of P24,000.00 from his illegal dismissal on July 31, 2014 to May 6, 2017;

b) Separation pay shall be based on the monthly salary rate of P24,000.00 computed as one month salary pay for every year of service beginning March 5, 2010 until May 6, 2017; and

c) 13th month pay benefit shall be based on the monthly salary rate of P24,000.00 beginning January 1, 2014 until May 6, 2017.

All other aspects of the money award in the Resolution dated November 22, 2017 of the NLRC are SUSTAINED.

SO ORDERED." (Leonen, J., on official leave.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-20.

2.Id. at 216.

3. Penned by Labor Arbiter Celso Virgilio C. Ylagan IV; id. at 215-222.

4.Id. at 214-222.

5.Id. at 28.

6. Penned by Commissioner Dolores M. Peralta-Beley, with the concurrence of Presiding Commissioner Grace E. Maniquiz-Tan and Commissioner Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap; id. at 230-238.

7.Id. at 353-357.

8.Id. at 354-357.

9.Id. at 224-227.

10.Id. at 225-227.

11.Id. at 210.

12.Id.

13.Id.

14.Id.

15.Id. at 208-212.

16.Id. at 192-199.

17.Id. at 359-369.

18.Id. at 369.

19.Id. at 371-373.

20.Id. at 120-123.

21. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Danton Q. Bueser; id. at 27-34.

22.Id. at 15-19.

23.Id. at 19.

24.Id. at 414-422.

25.Id. at 414-415.

26.Id. at 416-418.

27.Id. at 418-422.

28. RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Section 6.

29.Rasonable v. NLRC, 324 Phil. 191, 200 (1996).

30.Rollo, pp. 40-55.

31.Lim v. HMR Philippines, Inc., 740 Phil. 353, 367 (2014).

32.Id. at 370.

33.Id.

34.Id.

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.