G.R. No. 179326 ; July 31, 2013
LUCIANO P. CANEDO, Petitioner, vs. KAMPILAN SECURITY AND DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC. and RAMONCITO L. ARQUIZA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Luciano P. Cañedo was a security guard hired by respondent Kampilan Security and Detective Agency, Inc. and assigned to a client, the National Power Corporation (NPC). On May 8, 2003, he was suspended for one month for allegedly not wearing the proper uniform per an NPC report. Subsequently, on June 2, 2003, NPC informed the agency it was no longer interested in petitioner’s services and requested his replacement. On June 17, 2003, petitioner requested a certification from respondent Arquiza for his intended retirement. In response, Arquiza issued a certification dated June 25, 2003, stating petitioner was employed from November 20, 1996 to May 7, 2003 and was “terminated from his employment by this agency on May 7, 2003 as per client’s request.”
Relying on this certification, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, finding the certification as clear proof of dismissal. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially affirmed but, upon reconsideration, reversed itself, holding petitioner was not dismissed but merely pulled out from his assignment due to the client’s request, and that the certification was issued merely to facilitate his SSS retirement application. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s reversal.

ISSUE

Whether the certification issued by respondent Arquiza constitutes conclusive proof that petitioner was illegally dismissed from employment.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, holding that petitioner was not illegally dismissed. The Court emphasized that the employer bears the burden of proving that a dismissal is for a just or authorized cause. However, the employee must first establish the fact of dismissal. In this case, the certification stating petitioner was “terminated” is not dispositive. The Court applied the principle that a document must be interpreted according to the evident intention of the parties, considering the surrounding circumstances. The certification was issued upon petitioner’s own request for a document to support his retirement application. The phrase “as per client’s request” and the prior client communication requesting replacement indicated that the cessation of work was due to the client’s loss of confidence, leading to a legitimate pull-out from the assignment, not a termination from the agency. The agency’s consistent stance was that petitioner remained an employee awaiting reassignment. Therefore, the single word “terminated” in the certification, taken in isolation, cannot override the totality of evidence showing the absence of a dismissive act by the employer. Since no dismissal was proven, the complaint for illegal dismissal necessarily fails.