G.R. No. 202613 November 8, 2017
Symex Security Services, Inc. and Rafael Y. Arcega, Petitioners vs. Magdalino O. Rivera, Jr. and Roberto B. Yago, Respondents

FACTS

Respondents Magdalino Rivera, Jr. and Roberto Yago were security guards employed by petitioner Symex Security Services, Inc. and assigned to its client, Guevent Industrial Development Corporation. On February 25, 2003, they filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for various monetary claims, including underpayment of wages and non-payment of overtime and holiday pay. Subsequently, on March 14, 2003, they were relieved from their post by Symex’s Operations Manager, Capt. Arcega Cura, who informed them the client had reduced the guard complement.
On March 17, 2003, when respondents reported for reassignment, Capt. Cura presented them with a choice: withdraw their pending complaint or face termination. He provided a sample affidavit of desistance and stated they would not be given a new assignment unless they signed it. Upon their refusal, they were told they were dismissed. The next day, they amended their complaint to include illegal dismissal. Petitioners denied the dismissal, claiming respondents remained on the company roll and refused available postings.

ISSUE

Whether respondents were illegally dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals that respondents were illegally dismissed. The Court upheld the conclusion that Capt. Cura’s act of conditioning respondents’ continued employment or reassignment upon the withdrawal of their labor complaint constituted illegal dismissal. An employer cannot compel an employee to choose between forfeiting a valid legal right and losing their job. This act was a constructive dismissal, as the employer made continued employment impossible by imposing an unreasonable condition.
The legal logic is grounded in the burden of proof in dismissal cases. Under Article 277(b) of the Labor Code, the employer bears the burden of proving that a dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. Petitioners failed to discharge this burden. Their defense—that respondents refused postings—was unsubstantiated and belied by the credible testimony that the refusal was a direct consequence of the unlawful ultimatum. The Court found no valid cause for termination, such as those enumerated under Articles 297, 298, or 299 of the Labor Code. The dismissal, being tainted with bad faith for retaliating against the exercise of a statutory right, was declared illegal. Consequently, petitioners were held solidarily liable for the awarded backwages, separation pay, and other monetary claims.