United Special Watchman Agency v. The Honorable Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, employees of petitioner United Special Watchman Agency (USWA), filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of money claims against USWA and Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (BF). The dispute arose from the termination of a Contract for Security Services between USWA and BF, which stipulated a thirty-day notice period for termination. BF terminated the contract two days after its effectivity, providing notice that the termination would take effect thirty days from receipt. Procedural History: USWA alleged that it notified affected employees of the termination and offered reassignment, but only some reported. Twenty-one guards subsequently filed a complaint, later amended to include thirty-seven employees, claiming illegal dismissal and praying for separation pay. After initial rulings and a remand by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), a compromise settlement was reached between BF and the employees. However, the NLRC later ordered USWA to pay separation pay, finding no proof of notification for reassignment. USWA then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed for a defective certification of non-forum shopping. Subsequent motions for reconsideration were also denied. USWA then filed the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court. The Petition: USWA seeks annulment of the Court of Appeals' resolutions dismissing its petition and requests the case be remanded to the appellate court. USWA contends that the Court of Appeals erred in not giving due course to its petition and argues that it did not commit forum shopping by filing the instant petition while a second motion for reconsideration was pending before the Court of Appeals, asserting different issues were involved. The petition also argues on the merits that the employees were not illegally dismissed and that the NLRC erred in awarding separation pay.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of the petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court while a second motion for reconsideration was pending before the Court of Appeals constitutes forum shopping. Whether the respondent employees were illegally dismissed. Whether USWA is liable for separation pay.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court of Appeals' resolutions dismissing the petition for certiorari are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum shopping: The Court held that USWA was guilty of forum shopping. The petition before the Supreme Court sought the remand of the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action, which was precisely the objective of USWA's motions for reconsideration before the CA – to have its petition given due course. The Court emphasized that filing a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading and that resorting to forum shopping is contumacious and adds to the congestion of court dockets. The admission of the pendency of the second motion for reconsideration in the certification of non-forum shopping did not exculpate USWA from the charge of forum shopping, as it was clearly seeking a more favorable forum. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed with prejudice on this ground. On the issue of illegal dismissal: The Court found that the respondent employees were illegally dismissed. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) found that the employees were placed on a temporary off-detail which exceeded the allowable period of six months, thereby constituting constructive dismissal. The NLRC's findings were supported by evidence, including the fact that the employees were not shown to have been given new assignments or informed of such opportunities within the six-month period. The Court gave great weight to the factual findings of the NLRC, as administrative bodies are afforded deference in their fields of expertise, and these findings were not shown to be based on an erroneous estimation of the evidence. On the issue of liability for separation pay: The Court affirmed the NLRC's award of separation pay to the employees. Given the finding of illegal dismissal, USWA was liable to pay the respondents separation pay equivalent to one month's pay for every year of service. Although a compromise agreement was reached between BF and the employees, it only covered salary differential and did not preclude the award of separation pay. The Court reiterated that pursuant to legitimate job contracting, USWA and BF are jointly and severally liable for wages and violations of the Labor Code, but the compromise agreement specifically excluded the separation pay claim against USWA.
Main Doctrine
Filing a second motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals while a petition for certiorari is pending before the Supreme Court constitutes forum shopping, which warrants the dismissal of the petition. Furthermore, placing employees on a 'floating status' for more than six months amounts to constructive dismissal, entitling them to separation pay.