Cañedo v. Kampilan Security
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Luciano P. Cañedo was hired as a security guard by respondent Kampilan Security and Detective Agency, Inc. (Kampilan) on November 20, 1996. He was assigned to the National Power Corporation (NPC) at Naga Power Barge 102. On May 8, 2003, petitioner was suspended for one month for allegedly not wearing his proper uniform, based on a report from NPC's Allan Alfafara. On June 2, 2003, NPC informed Kampilan that it no longer wanted petitioner's services and requested his replacement. On June 17, 2003, petitioner requested a certification from Kampilan's General Manager, Engr. Ramoncito L. Arquiza, in connection with his intended retirement. On June 25, 2003, Arquiza issued a certification stating that petitioner was employed from November 20, 1996, to May 7, 2003, and was "terminated from his employment by this agency on May 7, 2003 as per client’s request." Procedural History: Five days after the certification was issued, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, and non-payment of monetary benefits against Kampilan and Arquiza. The Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed and illegally suspended, ordering Kampilan to pay separation pay, backwages, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay. The NLRC initially affirmed this with modification, ordering deduction of petitioner's cash advance. However, upon reconsideration, the NLRC reversed its decision, holding that there was no dismissal. It ruled that petitioner was on floating status and ordered Kampilan to pay petitioner's salary during the illegal suspension, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay, less the cash advance. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied petitioner's petition for certiorari, affirming the NLRC's resolution. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision which affirmed the NLRC's resolution declaring that petitioner was not illegally dismissed.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Luciano P. Cañedo was illegally dismissed from employment. Whether petitioner's suspension was illegal and without due process.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that petitioner was not illegally dismissed but was considered on floating status. The Court ordered respondent Kampilan Security and Detective Agency, Inc. to pay petitioner his salary for the period of his illegal suspension (May 8, 2003 to June 7, 2003), holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay, less his outstanding cash advance of ₱10,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal dismissal: The Court ruled that petitioner was not illegally dismissed. The June 25, 2003 Certification, stating petitioner was "terminated from his employment... as per client’s request," must be read in conjunction with the NPC's June 2, 2003 letter requesting petitioner's replacement. It is common practice for clients of security agencies to request the replacement of guards assigned to them, but this does not automatically mean the security guard is dismissed from the employ of the agency. Instead, the guard is considered on "floating status," which can last for a maximum of six months. Furthermore, petitioner's own letter dated June 17, 2003, requesting a certification in connection with his intended retirement, negated his claim of termination. The Court found that the certification was issued to facilitate petitioner's application for retirement benefits with the Social Security System (SSS), and the word "terminated" was used to show that petitioner was no longer in service for SSS purposes. The respondents sufficiently established that petitioner was merely pulled out from his post at NPC and was not dismissed. On the issue of illegal suspension: The Court agreed with the NLRC that petitioner was suspended without being given the opportunity to explain his side, thus violating his right to due process. The report of Allan Alfafara regarding the non-wearing of uniform was unsubstantiated, and there was no evidence that a roving inspector reported any infraction by petitioner. Therefore, petitioner should be paid his salary during the period of his illegal suspension, which was from May 8, 2003, to June 7, 2003.
Main Doctrine
A security guard's relief from a client's post due to the client's request for replacement does not automatically constitute dismissal from employment. The security guard may be considered on floating status, and the employer must prove actual dismissal.