GR 138379; (November, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138379, November 25, 2004
PLACIDO O. URBANES, JR., operating under the name and style of Catalina Security Agency, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and JERRY G. RILLES, respondents.
FACTS
Jerry Rilles was employed as a security guard by Catalina Security Agency starting March 29, 1984. His assignment at the Social Security System (SSS) in Makati ended on June 24, 1994, upon the expiration of the agency’s contract. Rilles subsequently reported to the agency’s office on multiple occasions seeking a new assignment but was not given one. He alleged that an offered post in Bataan was impractical due to his Manila residence, and that a later offer in Manila was conditioned on signing a termination contract, which he refused.
The agency contended that Rilles refused the Bataan assignment, where quarters were provided, and failed to report for other available posts. It denied conditioning a Manila assignment on signing a termination contract. On March 28, 1995, Rilles filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, awarding separation pay and a cash bond refund. The NLRC affirmed but deleted the separation pay, ordering reinstatement with full back wages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s finding that Jerry Rilles was illegally dismissed.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals with modification. The legal logic centered on the nature of employment in the security agency industry and the burden of proof in dismissal cases. Security guards are considered regular employees, and the termination of an assignment does not sever the employer-employee relationship. The agency retains the duty to provide a new assignment absent a valid dismissal.
The burden of proof to show a valid dismissal rests on the employer. The agency failed to discharge this burden. Its claim that Rilles refused assignments or abandoned his job was unsubstantiated. Critically, the agency did not issue any written notice or a Duty Detail Order to Rilles, nor did it send a written notice to his last known address requiring him to report for work—a procedural requirement to prove abandonment. The prolonged failure to provide any assignment from June 1994 until the complaint was filed in March 1995 constituted constructive dismissal. Since no valid cause for dismissal was proven, Rilles was entitled to reinstatement. The award of back wages from June 25, 1994, until actual reinstatement, the refund of his cash bond, and attorney’s fees was proper. The case was remanded to the NLRC for computation.