[G.R. No.
145569. February 5, 2001]
SALDO, et al. v. BESSANG PASS SECURITY AGENCY,
INC., et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a
resolution of this Court dated FEB 5 2001.
G.R. No.
145569 (Hermenegildo Saldo, et al. v. Bessang Pass Security Agency, Inc., et al.)
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. This a Petition seeks to set aside the Decision dated August 31,
2000 of the Court of Appeals, which reversed the Decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC), that previously affirmed the decision of Executive
Labor Arbiter Reynoso Belarmino in RAB Case No. VII-10-0899-93 (NLRC Case No.
V-0057-96) as well as its Resolution dated May 28, 1998, denying petitioners’
Motion for Reconsideration.
Petitioners Hermenegildo Saldo, Alejandro Almaden, Emmanuel Ladiona,
Eddie Santillan and Patricio Armodia were employed as security guards of
Bessang Pass Security Agency, all assigned to the Department of Public Works
and Highways (DPWH) Office in Lahug, Cebu City. They separately filed with the Labor Arbiter complaints against
the respondent security agency for underpayment of wages and 13th month
pay, as well as non-payment of their overtime pay, rest day, holiday pay, night
shift differentials, service incentive leave and allowances. Aside from the above-mentioned money claims,
Patricio Armodia and Eddie Santillan also alleged that they were constructively
dismissed, their transfers being made with evident as the transfers were made
With evident bad faith.
On September 22, 1995, the Labor arbiter rendered a decision declaring
that the transfer of Eddie Santillan and Patricio Armodia to different
locations constituted constructive dismissal, and directing the respondent
Bessang Pass Security Agency to pay the sum of two hundred-fifty three thousand
seventy and 52/100 pesos (P253,070.52) to the complainants. The Labor Arbiter found that the transfers
were made in bad faith, as they were made after the complainants first aired
their grievances to their detachment commander, Dominador Muana. The Labor Arbiter concluded that the
transfers were unfair to the workers, being the preventive measures undertaken
by management at the workers’ expense in order to prevent further conflicts in
the workplace to arise. This was
evident a the transfers were made in haste.
Furthermore, it was only after such event that the management in haste. Furthermore, it was only after such event
that the management decided Saldo was to be retired.
Anent the money claims being pursued by the complainants for
underpayment of wages and 13th month pay, non-payment of their overtime pay, rest
day, holiday pay night shift differentials, service incentive leave and
allowances, the Labor Arbiter also ruled in their favor. The Arbiter gave more credence to the
personally handwritten pay-slip records kept by the complainants as evidence of
the (lesser) amounts actually received from the company, vis-à-vis the actual company payrolls submitted by the
respondents. The Arbiter held that the
figures shown therein were consistent and credible evidence, and were not a
mere fabrication. On December 9, 1997,
the NLRC, with Commissioner Bernabe S. Batuhan, dissenting, affirmed in toto the Labor Arbiter’s
decision. Bessang Pass moved for
reconsideration of the NLRC’s judgment, but this was denied in a resolution
dated May 28, 1998.
The Court of Appeals in a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 filed before it, found that the NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion, thereby granting such petition. The Court ruled that the reassignment of the
security guards was valid and therefore no constructive dismissal took place
with regard to two (2) of the private complainants, herein Patricio Armodia and
Eddie Santillan. The Supreme Court has
recognized in a number of cases that it is considered management prerogative to
transfer an employee from one office to another within the business
establishment, provided there is no demotion in rank nor a diminution in pay or
salary, benefits and other privileges.
It is customary in security guard agencies especially, to transfer or
rotate guards from time to time in order to prevent them from becoming too
familiar with the employees of the establishments wherein they are assigned,
thereby rendering them less effective duties.
This prerogative was made clear to the complainants before they were
hired, which fact was never denied. Also
not in dispute was the fact that this was not the first time a reshuffling of guards
took place, as these very guards were reassigned to various DPWH offices in the
past.
As the complainants refused to assume their new assignments as dictated
by sound business judgment and in accordance with pre-determined and
established company policy and practice, it was held that their dismissal from
employment was based on proper grounds.
The Court of Appeals also found that there was no showing that the
transfer was accompanied any a demotion in rank or diminution of salaries,
privileges and other benefits which could give credence to their assertion of
constructive dismissal. Therefore, no
separation pay to petitioners were granted.
With regard the money claims, the Court of Appeals upheld the Company
payroll journals as basis for its computation, as opposed to the complainants’
personally typewritten payslips. It
upheld in toto the computation on the
money claims laid out by NLRC Commissioner Batuhan in his dissenting opinion on
the aforesaid NLRC decision.
Notably, however, the Court considered the Petitioner-Complainants’
money claims for the period from October 27, 1990 to October 27, 1993, the date
the complaints were filed. Under
Article 291 of the Labor Code, as amended, all money claims arising from
employer-employee relations shall be filed within three (3) years from the
accrual of the cause of action, other wise they are forever barred. The claims prior to October 27, 1990, had
therefore already become stale.
Petitioners are now before this court through petition for Certiorari under Rule 45, grounded on grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of public
respondent CA. They likewise pray for
the acceptance of their counter-proposal of monetary awards to herein private
respondents based on the official company records. The issues presented for determination can be narrowed down into
two : Firstly, Patricio Armodia and
Eddie Santillan’s charges of illegal constructive dismissal; and the
complainant’s respective money claims.
The petitioners likewise move for the acceptance of their
counter-proposal of monetary awards to herein private respondent.
Petitioners make the following assignment of errors: 1) that the
conclusions of the Court of Appeals are grounded on speculation, surmise and
conjectures when it disregarded the actual testimonies of the private
complainants regarding their own claims, as asserted in their respective
affidavits under oath; 2) that the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the
pay-slips and /or personal records of the complainants that were personally
kept by them at the time they were paid salaries, thereby basing their findings
of fact on company payrolls which were allegedly signed in blank by the
complainants each time their salaries were paid; 3) that the Court of Appeals
erred in disregarding the findings of the Labor Arbiter that the employer
(herein Respondent) was in bad faith when it suddenly reassigned some of the
Complainant-Petitioners; 4) that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that
petitioner-complainants were not illegally dismissed; 5) that the Court of
Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the NLRC.
We uphold the decision of the Court of Appeals, as we find no cogent
reason to disturb its findings. This
Court has held in a number of cases that it is management prerogative to
transfer an employee from one office to another within the business
establishment provided there is no demotion in rank, diminution in pay or
salary, and other benefits. This
privilege is inherent in the employer’s right to control and manage its
enterprises effectively, based on their own assessment of the employees’
individual qualifications, aptitudes and competence, as well as the nature of
the employment for which they were hired.
This Court cannot accept the position that when an employee opposes his
employer’s decision to transfer him to another work place, there being no bad
faith or underhanded motives on the part of either party, it is the employee’s
wishes that should be made to prevail. 1 Philippine Telegraph
and Telephone Company vs. Laplana,
199 SCRA 485 (1991).
As for the money claims, this court also upholds the computation
adopted by the Court of Appeals and the NLRC commissioner in his dissenting
opinion of the NLRC decision. In the
case of Standard Rice and Corn Mill vs.
Dela Cerna, this Court held:
The probative value of the cash vouchers can not be impugned or
repudiated by mere affidavits or self-serving allegations that the workers
signed blank vouchers. Neither will the
contents of the vouchers be controverted by mere presentation of blank forms
purporting to be samples thereof. The
workers themselves have testified on the genuineness of their signatures. 2 195 SCRA 475, 481
(1991).
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
Very truly
yours,
(Sgd.)VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk
of Court