Commando Security Agency v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Nemesio Decierdo was employed as a security guard by petitioner Commando Security Agency since February 1981. In April 1987, petitioner secured a contract to provide guarding services to Alsons Development and Investment Corporation (ALSONS) for one year. Decierdo was assigned to ALSONS' Aldevinco Building. On February 9, 1988, ALSONS requested a "periodic reshuffling" of guards. Pursuant to this request, petitioner issued a recall order to Decierdo on February 10, 1988, effective February 11, 1988, and simultaneously issued a detail order assigning him to Pacific Oil Company. Decierdo refused to accept the new assignment, annotating that he was going to rest for a while. Procedural History: On February 11, 1988, Decierdo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, and various monetary claims. The Executive Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on June 28, 1988, ordering petitioner to pay Decierdo certain monetary benefits but dismissing the claims for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, overtime pay, and night premium for lack of merit. Petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Petition: The NLRC, on May 26, 1989, affirmed with modification the Labor Arbiter's decision, deducting a certain amount representing Decierdo's accountability with petitioner from the total award. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in failing to declare Decierdo's abandonment of employment, denying petitioner due process, not considering Decierdo in estoppel, and not upholding petitioner's entitlement to a 25% share of Decierdo's salary.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in failing to make a clear pronouncement that Decierdo had abandoned his employment. Whether petitioner was denied due process of law. Whether Decierdo is in estoppel from complaining about the deduction from his salary. Whether petitioner is entitled to a 25% share of Decierdo's monthly salary as agreed upon.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission in rendering the assailed decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of abandonment of employment: The Court held that the NLRC did find that Decierdo had given up his job and chose separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, although his claim for separation pay was not granted. The Court found no need for the Labor Arbiter to fix a period for Decierdo to report for work, as Decierdo himself was no longer interested in his job and had claimed for separation benefits. The refusal to accept a new assignment, coupled with the statement that he was going to rest, indicated an abandonment of his post. The NLRC's dismissal of the charge of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice was therefore affirmed. On the issue of denial of due process: The Court reiterated that procedural due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard, which petitioner was afforded. Petitioner was notified, participated in conciliation conferences, and filed a position paper. The Labor Arbiter's decision to proceed based on position papers and submitted records, without a full-blown hearing, was in compliance with the Revised Rules of the NLRC. Section 3 of these rules allows the Labor Arbiter, in his sound discretion, to dispense with a hearing if the case can be decided based on the submitted position papers and supporting proofs. The Court noted that petitioner could have presented its payrolls and records to refute the monetary claims, but instead relied on technicalities. On the issue of estoppel and the 25% salary deduction: The Court found petitioner's contention that Decierdo is estopped from complaining about the 25% deduction from his salary to be without merit. The Court declared that such a provision in the employment contract, where the employer deducts a share of the employee's salary for procuring job placement, is illegal and inequitous, hence, null and void. The constitutional provisions on social justice and protection to labor mandate the Court to be vigilant in protecting workers who are in a contractually disadvantaged position and sign waivers or provisions contrary to law and public policy. Any such agreement or contract is void ab initio being contrary to law and public policy, notwithstanding any previous agreement or understanding between the parties. On the issue of the 25% salary deduction (continued): Petitioner is not entitled to a 25% share of Decierdo's monthly salary as agreed upon, as such an agreement is illegal and void.
Main Doctrine
A security agency's request for periodic reshuffling of guards by its client, a reasonable request based on the client's needs, does not constitute illegal dismissal when the agency recalls a guard and offers him a new assignment, and the guard refuses to accept it, thereby abandoning his post. Furthermore, deductions from an employee's salary for the employer's share in job placement are void as they are contrary to law and public policy.