ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 203912. February 13, 2013.]
VV SECURITY AGENCY & ALLIED SERVICES, INC., petitioner, vs. ROQUE CAGAMPANG, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 13 February 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 203912 — VV Security Agency & Allied Services, Inc. v. Roque Cagampang.
VV Security & Allied Services, Inc. (VVSASI) hired respondent Roque Cagampang (Cagampang) in January 1999, initially posting him as security guard of Liceo de Cagayan in Cagayan de Oro City. In January 2003, he was assigned at the Golez Property also in Cagayan de Oro City and in April 2006 was transferred to the Puerto de Oro Milling bodega in Bukidnon.
According to VVSASI, Cagampang was on unauthorized leave (AWOL) on October 1 and 2, 2006. On request of the client, VVSASI assigned another security guard in Cagampang's post.
On October 3, 2006, Teddy Tagarda (Tagarda), VVSASI Operations Manager, confronted Cagampang relative to his unauthorized absences. Cagampang admitted that he went on AWOL but that it was only for one day. With that admission, Tagarda advised Cagampang to talk to his Head Guard.
Instead of talking to his Head Guard, however, Cagampang filed a Complaint for constructive/illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and non-payment of holiday pay, night shift differential and 13th month pay against VVSASI and/or Vicente Cabrera before the Labor Arbiter. In the Complaint, Cagampang likewise prayed for payment of separation pay. TCEaDI
In a Decision dated October 30, 2007, the Labor Arbiter DISMISSED the Complaint for lack of merit, finding that there was neither constructive dismissal nor abandonment of work. In addition, the Labor Arbiter found that Cagampang was paid wages in accordance with the then prevailing minimum wage and other labor standard benefits. However, the Labor Arbiter considered Cagampang's prayer for separation pay as an indication of strained relations and ordered VVSASI to pay him separation pay of P45,843.20 (P5,730.40 x 8 years), in lieu of reinstatement.
Aggrieved, VVSASI appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
In the Resolution of January 23, 2009, the NLRC AFFIRMED the October 30, 2007 Decision of the Labor Arbiter with MODIFICATION that separation pay should be computed from January 1999 1 up to finality of judgment.
Still aggrieved, VVSASI filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA.
In a Decision 2 dated March 9, 2012, the CA AFFIRMED the NLRC Decision/Resolution.
VVSASI filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was DENIED in the Resolution of September 24, 2012.
VVSASI now comes to this Court on a Petition for Review on Certiorari, challenging the award of separation pay.
In Sentinel Security Agency v. National Labor Relations Commission, 3 this Court held that "[v]erily, complainants do not pray for reinstatement; in fact they refused to be reinstated. Such refusal is indicative of strained relations. Thus, separation pay is awarded in lieu of reinstatement." The CA observed that from the start of the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, Cagampang was already praying for payment of separation pay. He fears that if reinstated, VVSASI will only place him under close scrutiny and will penalize him even for his slightest mistake. In addition, he averred that it would be uncomfortable for him to continue working with VVSASI considering the filing of the instant labor complaint. Accordingly, the tribunals below found that the antagonism between the parties has caused a deep and severe strain in their relationship and properly awarded to Cagampang separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. cIHSTC
In Luna v. Allado Construction Co., Inc., 4 this Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision finding that "[t]here appears to be no reason why petitioner, who has served respondent corporation for more than eight years without committing any infraction, cannot be extended the reasonable financial assistance of P18,000.00 as awarded by the Labor Arbiter on equity considerations."
Normally, separation pay is awarded based on the actual number of years of service. Thus, from January 1999 (which is Cagampang's date of hiring) until October 3, 2006 (which is Cagampang's last day of service), Cagampang's actual years of service is eight (8) years. The Labor Arbiter thus properly awarded him separation pay equivalent to eight (8) years. It was thus error on the part of the NLRC, which was affirmed by the CA, to award Cagampang separation pay counted from date of hiring until finality of judgment.
WHEREFORE, premises considered the assailed CA Decision of March 9, 2012 and Resolution of September 24, 2012 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that separation pay should be computed from January 1999 (date of hiring) up to October 3, 2006 instead of up to finality of judgment, for a total amount of P45,843.20 (P5,730.40 x 8 years).
SO ORDERED. TcDAHS
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Date of hiring of respondent Cagampang.
2.Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Zenaida Galapate-Laguilles.
3.356 Phil. 434, 447 (1998).
4.G.R. No. 175251, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 262, 276.