GR 159293; (December, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159293. December 16, 2005.
VETERANS SECURITY AGENCY, INC. and JESUS R. VARGAS, Petitioners, vs. FELIPE GONZALVO, JR., Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Felipe Gonzalvo, Jr. was employed as a security guard by petitioner Veterans Security Agency, Inc. (VSAI). His assignments included various posts from 1991 to 1998. In 1995 and 1998, he filed complaints with the SSS against VSAI for non-remittance of his contributions. Following the 1998 complaint, his OWWA Detachment Commander indicated VSAI’s annoyance. Subsequently, due to the expiration of a client’s lease contract, respondent was reassigned from the OWWA main office to a parking lot post on December 30, 1998, which was soon to be vacated.
On January 8, 1999, respondent was informed he would be reassigned to a DOLE post, requiring him to renew clearances and undergo a neurological examination. He requested assignment to other OWWA units to avoid these new requirements, but this was denied. VSAI claimed he abandoned his job, while respondent asserted he was placed on indefinite “floating status” without pay. He subsequently filed complaints for illegal dismissal and monetary claims.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Felipe Gonzalvo, Jr. was illegally dismissed by Veterans Security Agency, Inc.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals and the NLRC that Gonzalvo was illegally dismissed. The legal logic centers on the employer’s failure to substantiate a valid cause for dismissal and the evident retaliatory motive. First, VSAI failed to prove abandonment. The requirement for respondent to undergo new pre-employment procedures for a reassignment was effectively a constructive dismissal, as it imposed unreasonable conditions for continued employment. His immediate filing of a complaint negated any intention to abandon his job.
Second, the sequence of events established that the dismissal was retaliatory. The reassignment and subsequent floating status occurred shortly after respondent filed his second SSS complaint. The Court found that VSAI’s actions were calculated to force him out of employment as a punitive measure for asserting his statutory rights. Security of tenure cannot be subverted by an employer’s displeasure over an employee’s exercise of a legal right. Consequently, VSAI was ordered to pay separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and his awarded monetary claims. The dismissal, being illegal and tainted with bad faith, warranted such relief.