GR 182397; (September, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182397 , September 14, 2011
Alert Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. and/or Manuel D. Dasig, Petitioners, vs. Saidal Pasawilan, Wilfredo Verceles and Melchor Bulusan, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Saidal Pasawilan, Wilfredo Verceles, and Melchor Bulusan were employed by petitioner Alert Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. as security guards, assigned at the Department of Science and Technology (DOST). They filed a complaint for money claims against petitioners for being underpaid. Subsequently, they were relieved from their DOST posts and, after six months without new assignments, filed a joint complaint for illegal dismissal. Petitioners denied dismissal, claiming respondents were merely detailed to the Metro Rail Transit/Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) compound, as shown by “Duty Detail Orders,” and that respondents failed to report there, instead loitering at DOST and encouraging other guards to file complaints. Petitioners filed a “termination report” with the Department of Labor and Employment. The illegal dismissal complaint was consolidated with the earlier money claims case. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the money claims but ordered payment of salary differentials. In the illegal dismissal case, the Labor Arbiter found respondents illegally dismissed. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, dismissing the complaint for lack of sufficient proof of dismissal. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding illegal dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether respondents were illegally dismissed.
RULING
Yes, respondents were illegally dismissed. The employer bears the burden to prove that the termination was for a just or authorized cause and complied with due process. Petitioners failed to discharge this burden. The alleged transfer via “Duty Detail Orders” was ineffective as respondents were never informed of these orders. Their relief from the DOST post without being properly reassigned constituted constructive dismissal. The defense of abandonment fails as petitioners admitted filing a termination report, which is inconsistent with a claim of mere transfer. Furthermore, the corporate officer, Manuel D. Dasig, can be held solidarily liable with the corporate entity, Alert Security, as he is deemed an “employer” under the Labor Code for acting in the interest of the employer. The Court of Appeals decision reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s finding of illegal dismissal and the award of monetary claims is affirmed.