FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 153712, March 14, 2007]

MAXIMUM SECURITY & SERVICES CORPORATION AND VIRGILIO GONZALES VERSUS VICENTE SEÑERES

 

SIRS/MESDAMES:

 

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated March 14, 2007.

G.R. No. 153712 – (MAXIMUM SECURITY & SERVICES CORPORATION and VIRGILIO GONZALES versus VICENTE SEÑERES)

This is a petition for review of the Court of Appeals’ October 31, 2001 decision[1] in CA-G.R. SP No. 62763 finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in rendering its decision[2] dated September 29, 2000 which in turn affirmed that of the labor arbiter[3] in NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-01-00341-99.

The facts follow.

Respondent Vicente Señeres was employed by petitioner Maximum Security and Services Corporation as security guard on September 7, 1988.[4] In the course of his employment, respondent (along with others) filed a case for underpayment of wages against petitioners. The labor arbiter decided in his favor.[5]

Seemingly appalled by this, petitioners relieved respondent from his post at Amon Trading.[6] He was placed on floating status for more than six months until he found another employer.

On June 11, 1999, respondent filed with the labor arbiter another complaint, this time for illegal dismissal, which was again decided in his favor. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter. The motion for reconsideration was denied.[7]

Undaunted, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals on the ground of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. This was dismissed in the assailed October 31, 2001 decision.

Hence, this recourse.

The issue in this case is factual:  whether or not respondent was constructively dismissed.

We have no reason to reverse the labor arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.  As a rule

this Court is not a trier of facts, and this doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, particularly if they coincide with those of the labor arbiter and the NLRC, and when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great weight and respect, and even finality, unless it is shown that the evidence of the parties was arbitrarily disregarded. As long as their decisions are devoid of any unfairness or arbitrariness in the process of their deduction from the evidence proffered by the parties, all that is left is for the Court to stamp its affirmation and declare its finality.[8]

Constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensitivity or disdain on the part of the employer has become so unbearable as to leave an employee with no choice but to forego continued employment.[9] Constructive dismissal, in other words, is an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not. It is a dismissal in disguise.[10]

In the case at bar, respondent was relieved from his last post for no valid reason. Although he continued reporting to petitioners’ office to seek a new assignment, none was given him.  It turned out to be a useless wait since petitioners obviously had no intention to extend him a new assignment.

Guards employed by a security agency may be temporarily sidelined as their assignments primarily depend on contracts entered into by the agency with third parties. However, such temporary inactivity should continue for no more than six months. After such period and no deployment is forthcoming, the security agency concerned becomes liable for constructive dismissal.[11] Since respondent was “off-detail”[12] for more than six months from his last assignment, petitioners were guilty of constructive dismissal.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division

 

[1] Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria (retired) and concurred in by Associate Justices Teodoro P. Regino (retired) and Rebecca de Guia-Salvador of the Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals; rollo, pp. 37-42.

[2] Penned by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and concurred in by Commissioners Ireneo B. Bernardo and Tito F. Genilo of the Third Division of the NLRC; id, pp 86-91.

[3] Labor Arbiter Aliman D. Mangandog, dated December 29, 1999.

[4] Petitioner Virgilio Gonzales was the General Manager and President of petitioner Maximum Security and Services Corporation and was impleaded in that capacity.

[5] Penned by Labor arbiter Jovencio Mayor, Jr., dated January 26, 1998; rollo, pp. 159-168.

[6] On December 5, 1996.

[7] Rollo, pp. 99-100.

[8] Minute Resolution of the Second Division of the Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162087, 2 March 2005.

[9] Soliman Security Services v. Court of Appeals, 433 Phil. 902 (2002).

[10] II LABOR CODE WITH COMMENTS AND CASES, 723(1999).

[11] Soliman Security Services v. Court of Appeals, 433 Phil. 902 (2002), citing Agro Commercial Security Agencies v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 82823-24, 31 July 1989, 175 SCRA 790.

[12] In security parlance, it means waiting to be posted.