Pido v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Federito B. Pido was hired as a security guard by respondent Cherubim Security and General Services, Inc. (Cherubim) on October 1, 1995. He was later transferred to a console room position. On January 21, 2000, Pido had an altercation with Richard Alcantara of the Ayala Security Force (ASF) regarding the expiration of Pido's security license and duty detail order. Alcantara filed a complaint for Gross Misconduct against Pido. On January 23, 2000, Pido reported for work but was not allowed entry due to a Recall Order issued by Cherubim, suspending him pending investigation. Pido filed an information report detailing the incident, claiming Alcantara attempted to grab his firearm. Cherubim conducted an investigation on January 25, 2000, where Pido reiterated his account. Pido claimed he was suspended thereafter. Procedural History: On October 23, 2000, Pido filed a complaint for illegal constructive dismissal, illegal suspension, and non-payment of salaries and other benefits against Cherubim and its employee Rosario K. Balais. Cherubim denied dismissal, claiming Pido declined an offered reassignment. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Pido's nine-month suspension ripened into constructive termination and ordered Cherubim to pay separation pay of P32,000.00, dismissing other claims. Both parties appealed. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the decision, finding constructive dismissal but setting aside separation pay and backwages, ordering only reinstatement. Pido's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC decision. Pido filed the present petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: Pido faulted the Court of Appeals for affirming the NLRC's ruling that he was not constructively dismissed, and for denying his claims for backwages and ordering reinstatement instead of separation pay.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner's nine-month suspension is tantamount to constructive dismissal. Whether the petitioner should be paid his backwages aside from his separation pay, and whether he abandoned his work. Whether the payment of separation pay is more viable than the order of reinstatement, and the personal liability of Rosario K. Balais.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision with modification. It ruled that petitioner Federito B. Pido was indeed constructively dismissed due to his prolonged preventive suspension. Respondent Cherubim Security and General Services, Inc. was ordered to reinstate petitioner and pay him backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, computed from the time his compensation was withheld up to the time of his actual reinstatement. The case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for computation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of constructive dismissal due to prolonged suspension: The Court held that the petitioner's nine-month suspension, initiated by a Recall Order for an indefinite period pending investigation, constituted constructive dismissal. The Court clarified that under Section 9 of Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, preventive suspension shall not last longer than thirty (30) days. If extended, the employer must pay the wages and other benefits due to the worker. Cherubim failed to inform Pido of any extension, nor did it pay him wages and benefits after the 30-day period, nor did it issue an order lifting the suspension or assigning him to a post. This prolonged suspension, due to the respondent's neglect to conclude the investigation, ripened into constructive dismissal. The Court also distinguished the situation from a 'floating status' applicable to security guards, which, if exceeding six months, also constitutes constructive dismissal, requiring the employer to prove dire exigency and lack of available posts. On the issue of backwages, separation pay, and abandonment of work: Following Article 279 of the Labor Code, the Court ruled that Pido, as a regular employee, is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority and payment of full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, computed from the time his compensation was withheld up to the time of his actual reinstatement. The Court rejected Cherubim's claim that Pido abandoned his work. It reasoned that no proof was proffered to support this claim. On the contrary, Pido's filing of a complaint for constructive dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement clearly indicated that he did not abandon his work. His subsequent filing of a complaint demonstrated his intent to pursue his employment. On the issue of reinstatement vs. separation pay and personal liability: The Court found that the appellate court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the NLRC order for reinstatement instead of separation pay, as Pido's position was not one of trust and confidence, and he could be assigned to a different post without disturbing organizational efficiency. The Court affirmed the well-settled rule that corporate officers are not personally liable for money claims of discharged employees unless they acted with evident malice and bad faith. Since no such showing was made against Rosario, who merely ran the day-to-day affairs of Cherubim, she was not held personally liable.
Main Doctrine
A preventive suspension exceeding 30 days without payment of wages and benefits, or an indefinite suspension pending investigation, ripens into constructive dismissal. For security guards, a 'floating status' exceeding six months also constitutes constructive dismissal, absent proof of dire exigency of the employer's business.