GR 127421; (December, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127421 . December 8, 1999.
PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. VIRGILIO DAPITON and the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Virgilio Dapiton, a security guard employed by petitioner agency, was suspended following a near-shootout incident with a co-worker in January 1994. Petitioner alleged that after his suspension, Dapiton refused assignments and went on absence without leave (AWOL), constituting abandonment. Dapiton countered that after serving his suspension, he was frequently and arbitrarily transferred to various posts, including a dangerous assignment where he witnessed illegal drug activity. He claimed his assignment to Security Bank failed because petitioner refused to pay a required neurological exam fee, after which he was reduced to a reliever and given no further posting, effectively terminating his employment.
ISSUE
The core issues were whether Dapiton was constructively dismissed or had abandoned his job, and whether the labor arbiter’s monetary award for wage differentials and other benefits was based on substantial evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of constructive dismissal but set aside the monetary award. On the first issue, the Court upheld the NLRC’s ruling that the frequent, unjustified transfers and the eventual cessation of assignments constituted a constructive dismissal, not abandonment. The employer’s actions demonstrated a scheme to force Dapiton out, as abandonment requires a clear, deliberate intent to sever employment, which was not proven. On the second issue, the Court found the labor arbiter’s monetary award of P74,844.24 for wage differentials, overtime, and other benefits lacked factual basis. The award was derived solely from Dapiton’s unsubstantiated allegations in his position paper, while petitioner had submitted a detailed computation and offered to present payroll records. The labor arbiter erred in ignoring this evidence and failing to explain the legal and factual basis for the award. Consequently, the case was remanded to the labor arbiter solely for the proper determination of monetary liabilities, if any.