G.R. No. 161196 ; July 28, 2008
Blue Angel Manpower and Security Services, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Romel Castillo, Wilson Ciriaco, Gary Garces, and Chesterfield Mercader, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Blue Angel, a security agency, hired private respondents as security guards and detailed them at a client’s premises. The guards filed a complaint for illegal deductions and other money claims, later amended to include illegal dismissal. They alleged underpayment, unlawful deductions, and lack of overtime and holiday pay. They further claimed that after filing the complaint, they were illegally terminated on various dates in April 1999. Blue Angel denied illegal dismissal, contending that the guards committed infractions like insubordination and sleeping on duty. It alleged that when summoned for investigation, three guards (Castillo, Ciriaco, and Garces) opted to resign voluntarily, submitting both pro-forma and handwritten resignation letters. The fourth guard, Mercader, was considered AWOL.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the guards, ordering their reinstatement with backwages. The NLRC modified this, holding that Castillo, Ciriaco, and Garces voluntarily resigned, and only Mercader was illegally dismissed. On certiorari, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC regarding the three guards, finding their dismissal illegal and reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Blue Angel elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that private respondents Castillo, Ciriaco, and Garces were illegally dismissed and were entitled to backwages and reinstatement.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision with modification. The Court upheld the finding of illegal dismissal for Castillo, Ciriaco, and Garces. It emphasized that in termination cases, the employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause and that due process was observed. Blue Angel failed to discharge this burden. The purported resignation letters, presented to negate illegal dismissal, were deemed suspect. The Court found that the circumstances under which they were executed—after the guards were informed of an impending investigation for alleged infractions—indicated that the resignations were not voluntary but were a product of coercion or pressure, constituting constructive dismissal. The employer’s claim of voluntary resignation was inconsistent with the immediate filing of the illegal dismissal complaint. Consequently, the three guards were entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and full backwages. If reinstatement is no longer feasible, they are to receive separation pay. Regarding Mercader, the NLRC decision finding his dismissal illegal had already become final and executory as Blue Angel did not appeal that specific portion. The monetary claims for underpayment and deductions were remanded to the Labor Arbiter for recomputation.