G.R. No. 169303 February 11, 2015
PROTECTIVE MAXIMUM SECURITY AGENCY, INC., Petitioner, vs. CELSO E. FUENTES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Protective Maximum Security Agency, Inc. (Protective) provides security services. Respondent Celso E. Fuentes was hired as a security guard by Protective in November 1999 and was assigned to Picop Resources, Inc. at Post 33 in Agusan del Sur. On July 20, 2000, armed persons, alleged to be the New People’s Army, raided Post 33, confiscated firearms and items, and inflicted violence upon Fuentes and other guards. Fuentes and the other guards reported the raid to the Philippine National Police (PNP). Based on affidavits from two other security guards (Lindo, Jr. and Cempron), the PNP found reason to believe Fuentes conspired with the raiders. A criminal complaint for robbery was filed against Fuentes on July 24, 2000, leading to his detention. Fuentes alleged he was mauled by Protective’s security officers while detained. The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor dismissed the complaint against Fuentes on August 15, 2001, finding no probable cause. Fuentes claimed that after the dismissal, he demanded to return to work but was refused entry by a Mr. Espinosa on the grounds that he was an NPA member and his position had been filled. Protective claimed Fuentes never reported to his superiors after the July 20, 2000 incident and his whereabouts were unknown. Fuentes filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims on March 14, 2002. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Protective, finding no dismissal. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with backwages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s ruling.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Celso E. Fuentes was illegally dismissed from his employment.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals that Fuentes was illegally dismissed. The Court held that Protective failed to prove a just or authorized cause for dismissal. The claim of abandonment was untenable as Fuentes’ absence was due to his detention and the filing of criminal charges against him based on the affidavits of Protective’s own security guards. His fear for his safety, given the allegations of being beaten, explained his failure to report. The employer has the burden of proof to show a valid cause for dismissal, and Protective did not discharge this burden. The dismissal was therefore illegal. The Court modified the monetary awards, ordering Protective to pay Fuentes full backwages from the time of his illegal dismissal until finality of the decision, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and his unpaid salary. The solidary liability of Picop Resources, Inc. for the unpaid salary was affirmed. Legal interest was also imposed on all monetary awards.