G.R. No. 222992, June 23, 2021
JOSE R. DELA TORRE, PETITIONER, VS. TWINSTAR PROFESSIONAL PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose R. Dela Torre was employed as a security guard by respondent Twinstar Professional Protective Services, Inc. in October 1988. In January 2011, he sought assistance from a media program to complain about underpayment of salaries. On January 24, 2011, he was directed to report to Twinstar’s office, where he was informed the next day that he was being placed on floating status. Alleging he was on floating status for more than six months, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of separation pay on August 23, 2011. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of petitioner, finding constructive dismissal and awarding backwages and separation pay. Twinstar appealed to the NLRC, presenting for the first time evidence that petitioner had gone on absence without leave (AWOL) around January 21, 2011, and that it had sent several notices for him to report for duty, which he ignored, leading to his termination on July 19, 2011. Twinstar also presented a Deed of Quitclaim and Release executed by petitioner on March 3, 2012. The NLRC reversed the LA, finding no constructive dismissal and upholding the quitclaim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA gravely erred in affirming the NLRC when it admitted and gave credence to Twinstar’s evidence submitted for the first time on appeal.
2. Whether the CA gravely erred in finding that petitioner was not illegally dismissed.
3. Whether the CA erred in affirming the NLRC when it denied the award of nominal damages by reason of the alleged quitclaim.

RULING

1. On the admission of evidence: The Supreme Court held that the NLRC was within its discretion to admit Twinstar’s evidence on appeal. Technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied in labor cases to facilitate the attainment of justice. The NLRC’s decision to admit the evidence, given its relevance and veracity, and in the interest of substantial justice, was not arbitrary or capricious.
2. On illegal dismissal: The Court found no constructive dismissal. Petitioner failed to prove, aside from self-serving allegations, that he was forced on floating status. In contrast, Twinstar established that petitioner went on AWOL and ignored several notices to report for duty. Petitioner himself admitted during a hearing before the LA that he declined an assignment offered within six months from being placed on floating status. The standard for constructive dismissal—whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign—was not met.
3. On nominal damages: The Court held that while the quitclaim was valid as to the monetary benefits petitioner received, it could not waive his right to nominal damages for Twinstar’s failure to observe due process in his termination. The public policy behind imposing nominal damages is to deter the “dismiss now, pay later” practice. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to nominal damages despite the quitclaim.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The petition was PARTIALLY GRANTED. The CA Decision and Resolution were AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Respondent Twinstar Professional Protective Services, Inc. was ordered to pay petitioner Jose Dela Torre the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as nominal damages, with interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the Decision until fully paid.