GR 107320; (January, 2000) (Digest)

G.R. No. 107320 January 19, 2000
A’ PRIME SECURITY SERVICES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division), HON. ARBITER VALENTIN GUANIO, and OTHELLO MORENO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Othello Moreno was initially employed by Sugarland Security Services, Inc. and was assigned to the U.S. Embassy. He alleged that when petitioner A’ Prime Security Services, Inc. took over the security contracts of its sister company, Sugarland, he was among the guards absorbed and was forced to sign a new six-month probationary contract. His employment was terminated on August 1, 1988. Moreno filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction, and underpayment of wages.
Petitioner contended that Moreno was validly terminated as a probationary employee for failing to meet company standards. It cited two incidents: being caught sleeping on post (a first offense warranting only a warning under company rules) and being involved in a quarrel with another guard (also a first offense punishable by suspension, not dismissal). Petitioner also claimed his dismissal was due to failing a psychological test administered at the end of his probation.

ISSUE

The issues were: (1) whether Moreno’s employment with A’ Prime was a continuation of his service with Sugarland; (2) whether he was a regular or probationary employee; and (3) whether his dismissal was illegal.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the NLRC’s finding of illegal dismissal. On the first issue, the Court noted that petitioner failed to specifically deny Moreno’s material allegation that A’ Prime and Sugarland were sister companies and that he was absorbed when A’ Prime took over the contract. Under the rules, such uncontroverted allegations are deemed admitted.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that Moreno was a regular employee from the start. His prior year of service with Sugarland, which was deemed admitted to be a sister company of A’ Prime, should be counted. The so-called probationary contract was a mere circumvention of security of tenure, as he was performing a necessary and desirable activity for A’ Prime’s business from his first day of reassignment.
On the third issue, the dismissal was illegal. The cited infractions (sleeping and quarreling) were first offenses not punishable by dismissal under the company’s own circular. The alleged failure to meet standards based on a psychological test was unsubstantiated, as the test results were not presented as evidence. Furthermore, Moreno was not afforded due process; he was not given a chance to explain or contest his termination. As a regular employee illegally dismissed, he was entitled to reinstatement and backwages.