Mojar v. Agro Commercial Security Service Agency, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, employed as security guards by respondent Agro Commercial Security Service Agency, Inc. (AGRO), were relieved from their posts and directed to report to new assignments in Metro Manila. They failed to report, prompting AGRO to require an explanation, which was not heeded. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging their reassignment was a scheme to sever employment and retaliation for claiming salary differentials, and that the transfer was inconvenient and prejudicial. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) found petitioners illegally dismissed and ordered reinstatement with backwages or separation pay. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA’s ruling but dismissed the complaint against the Bank of Commerce. AGRO filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The CA granted AGRO's petition, reversing the NLRC decision and dismissing the illegal dismissal complaints. The CA found the transfer a valid exercise of management prerogative, with no diminution in rank or salary, and no bad faith or ill motive. Petitioners' refusal to comply was deemed willful disobedience and abandonment. However, AGRO was ordered to pay each petitioner P10,000.00 for violating their right to statutory due process. Petitioners moved to annul the CA proceedings, alleging lack of jurisdiction due to belated filing and lack of authority of the signatory to the certification of non-forum shopping. The CA denied this motion. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising issues of lack of proof of service, omission of addresses, and the CA's alleged ignorance of law regarding constructive dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in taking cognizance of the Petition for Certiorari despite the alleged omission of petitioners' actual addresses and failure to attach proof of service. Whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed. Whether the CA Decision and Resolution are void judgments due to petitioners' negligence in failing to inform the court of their counsel's death and secure new counsel.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated 21 July 2008 and Resolution dated 16 March 2009 in CA-G.R. SP No. 102201 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged omission of petitioners' actual addresses and failure to attach proof of service: The Court held that while Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court requires the actual addresses of parties, this requirement is subject to substantial compliance. In this case, the respondent AGRO indicated that service could be made through their common counsel, Atty. Jose C. Espinas, whose address was clearly provided. This constitutes substantial compliance, especially since notice to counsel is generally sufficient when a party has appeared through counsel. The Court also noted that the CA had sufficient reason to take cognizance of the Petition. The Court acknowledged that failure to append proof of service is generally a fatal defect. However, it noted that the CA's records revealed that Atty. Espinas, petitioners' counsel of record at the time, was duly served copies of various CA resolutions. Service upon the counsel of record is valid even if the counsel is deceased, as it is the duty of the party-litigants to keep in contact with their counsel and inform the court of any changes, such as the death of their counsel. The petitioners' failure to do so constituted negligence, and they could not pass the blame to the court. The Court cited Ferrer v. Villanueva and Ang Biat Huan Sons Industries, Inc. v. Court of Appeals in emphasizing the mandatory nature of proof of service, but found that service to the counsel of record was valid in this instance. On the issue of illegal dismissal: The Court reiterated that a relief and transfer order in itself does not sever the employer-employee relationship. An employer has the prerogative to transfer or assign employees for legitimate business interests, provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, or privileges, and the transfer is not motivated by discrimination, bad faith, or punishment. The petitioners' claim of inconvenience and additional expenses due to the transfer to Manila was not sufficient to prove bad faith or ill motive on the part of AGRO. Their refusal to report to their new assignment constituted willful disobedience and abandonment, which are just causes for termination under the Labor Code. The Court distinguished this case from Agro Commercial Security Services Agency, Inc. v. NLRC (1989), where employees were placed on indefinite floating status due to terminated service contracts, unlike the present case where petitioners were merely reassigned. On the alleged voidness of CA judgments: The Court found that the petitioners were negligent in the conduct of their litigation. They were aware that their counsel, Atty. Espinas, was bedridden as early as December 2007 and passed away in February 2008, yet they failed to secure new counsel promptly or inform the court of the substitution. The excuse that they could not obtain their folder from Atty. Espinas's office was deemed flimsy, as case records can be reconstituted. The Court emphasized that litigants must be vigilant and keep in touch with their counsel and the court. Their failure to do so meant they were negligent and could not invoke due process violations when they were afforded the opportunity to be heard but failed to avail of it.
Main Doctrine
A transfer or reassignment order, in itself, does not sever the employer-employee relationship. Refusal to comply with a valid transfer order, absent bad faith or discrimination, constitutes willful disobedience and abandonment, which are just causes for termination, provided due process is observed.