GR 140150; (August, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140150. August 22, 2005.
ASSOCIATION OF INTEGRATED SECURITY FORCE OF BISLIG (AISFB) – ALU, Petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner AISFB-ALU is a labor union composed of regular company-hired security guards providing security services for respondent Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP). In 1990, the union was certified as the exclusive bargaining agent. Subsequently, the Philippine Constabulary Civil Security Force Command advised PICOP to desist from utilizing its Company Guard Force due to the non-renewal of its license to operate, which had expired. The PC enforced this directive, confiscated firearms, and padlocked the armory, compelling PICOP to close its security force and terminate the guards.
The guards filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging union busting. They contended PICOP deliberately failed to renew the license. PICOP countered that the closure was due to the government’s denial of the license renewal, citing difficulties in compliance, including missing firearms and intelligence reports that some guards were rebel sympathizers. Many guards accepted separation benefits or were reabsorbed into other company departments.
ISSUE
Whether the termination of the security guards was a valid dismissal due to the authorized closure of PICOP’s security force.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the dismissal. The closure of the Company Guard Force was a legitimate exercise of management prerogative compelled by legal necessity. The operation of a private security agency is a privilege governed by Republic Act No. 5487, requiring a license from the state. The Philippine Constabulary’s order for PICOP to cease operations due to the lapsed license was a sovereign act that the company could not defy. PICOP’s subsequent closure of the force was a direct result of this legal prohibition, not a pretext for union busting.
The Court found no evidence that PICOP deliberately caused the non-renewal. The company had applied for renewal, but encountered valid compliance issues. The termination was thus for an authorized cause under Article 283 of the Labor Code (closure of establishment). While the dismissal was legal, the Court affirmed the grant of separation pay to the affected employees as mandated by law. The petition was denied for lack of merit, as the factual findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, which found the closure justified, are binding and supported by substantial evidence.