G.R. No. 172988; July 26, 2010
JOSE P. ARTIFICIO, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RP GUARDIANS SECURITY AGENCY, INC., JUAN VICTOR K. LAURILLA, ALBERTO AGUIRRE, and ANTONIO A. ANDRES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose P. Artificio was employed as a security guard by respondent RP Guardians Security Agency, Inc. In June 2002, he had a heated argument with a fellow guard, Merlino B. Edu. Subsequently, Edu submitted a confidential report accusing Artificio of orchestrating his relief and abandoning his post. Another guard, Gutierrez Err, reported that Artificio arrived at the office under the influence of liquor, bad-mouthed employees, and threatened to burn the office after learning salaries were not available. Based on these reports, the agency issued a memorandum on July 29, 2002, placing Artificio under preventive suspension pending investigation for conduct unbecoming a security guard.
Without awaiting the scheduled administrative hearing on August 12, 2002, Artificio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims on August 5, 2002. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, declaring the preventive suspension illegal for violating due process, as Artificio was allegedly confused by the memoranda and denied a chance to confront his accusers. The Arbiter held this illegal suspension ripened into illegal dismissal. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals reversed this, finding no illegal dismissal but ordering reinstatement.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner Jose P. Artificio was not illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s ruling with modification. The legal logic is that preventive suspension is a valid management prerogative if there is a just and authorized cause, such as when the employee’s continued employment poses a serious threat to the employer’s life or property. The charges against Artificio—abandonment of post, threats, and being under the influence of liquor—were serious, especially for a security guard whose fundamental duty is to protect. The employer acted within its rights to suspend him pending investigation to prevent possible prejudice. The filing of the illegal dismissal complaint by Artificio before the scheduled administrative hearing was premature and constituted an abandonment of the available administrative process. There was no dismissal to speak of; the employer was merely exercising its disciplinary authority. However, since the relationship had been strained, the Court modified the reinstatement order and granted separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, computed from 1986, as an equitable measure.