Reliable Industrial Commercial Security Agency v. Cañete
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Reliable Industrial Commercial Security Agency, Inc. (RICSA) hired respondents Antonio C. Cañete and Margarito S. Auguis as security guards in 1994 and 1997, respectively, assigning them to Pier 12, North Harbor, Tondo, Manila. In March and April 2006, private respondents filed separate complaints against RICSA and its President, Ronald P. Mustard, for non-payment of minimum wage, overtime, holiday, and rest day pays. Shortly after these cases were submitted for resolution, petitioners reassigned Cañete to C4 Shell and Auguis to CY-08, allegedly barring them from reporting to their previous post. Consequently, private respondents filed a new complaint alleging constructive dismissal, asserting that the transfers were retaliatory and unreasonable due to increased transportation costs, effectively forcing them to resign. Petitioners countered that the transfers were part of a company policy of periodic reshuffling and that private respondents had refused to report for work. Procedural History: The labor arbiter initially dismissed the constructive dismissal complaint, finding the transfers to be a valid exercise of management prerogative. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this ruling, stating that the transfers were part of operational routine and did not prejudice the employees. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC's decision, finding the transfers highly suspect and illegal due to their timing and circumstances, thus concluding that private respondents were constructively dismissed. The Court of Appeals granted separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, along with backwages, though the monetary awards were not explicitly detailed in the fallo of its decision. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution. They argued that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by giving due course to the petition despite procedural defects, by ruling that private respondents were constructively dismissed, and by ordering the payment of backwages and separation pay. Petitioners contended that the transfers were not made in bad faith and that private respondents' refusal to report to new assignments constituted insubordination. Private respondents argued that petitioners availed of the wrong remedy, suggesting a petition for review under Rule 45 was appropriate. The Supreme Court, while noting the procedural misstep of filing a certiorari petition, opted to resolve the case on its merits due to the deficiency in the Court of Appeals' fallo and the prolonged pendency of the case, ultimately affirming the finding of constructive dismissal against RICSA but absolving petitioner Mustard of personal liability.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners availed of the proper remedy in assailing the dispositions of the Court of Appeals. Whether private respondents were constructively dismissed.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Decision dated March 23, 2009 and Resolution dated November 27, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 103900 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Private respondents Antonio Cañete and Margarito Auguis are declared constructively dismissed, and petitioner Reliable Industrial Commercial Security Agency, Inc. is ORDERED to PAY private respondents backwages computed from their constructive dismissal on June 21, 2006 until finality of this Decision, and separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service based on their respective dates of hiring until finality of this Decision. These monetary amounts shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Proper Remedy: The Court ruled that petitioners availed of the wrong remedy by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy to correct grave abuse of discretion and is only available when there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. A petition for review under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to appeal decisions of the Court of Appeals. Petitioners' claim of mixed questions of fact and law did not justify bypassing the ordinary appeal. The Court noted that the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period for appeal, and certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. However, in the interest of substantial justice and considering the deficiency in the Court of Appeals' dispositive portion, the Court resolved to decide the case on its merits, relaxing the procedural rules as is common in labor cases. On Constructive Dismissal: The Court affirmed the finding of constructive dismissal. While management prerogative allows for transfers, it is limited by law and principles of fair play, and cannot be used as a subterfuge to dismiss an employee or as a form of punishment. The transfers of respondents Cañete and Auguis occurred shortly after they filed complaints for money claims, suggesting a retaliatory motive. The Court found petitioners' claim of a standard reshuffling policy unconvincing, as respondents had been assigned to Pier 12 for many years and were only transferred after filing their complaints. The increased transportation expenses, though seemingly minor, could significantly impact a laborer's budget. The Court cited jurisprudence where transfers motivated by bad faith or as punishment constituted constructive dismissal, similar to the present case.
Main Doctrine
While management prerogative allows employers to transfer employees, this right is limited and cannot be exercised as a subterfuge to dismiss an employee, especially when such transfer is retaliatory and unreasonable, constituting constructive dismissal. Furthermore, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal under Rule 45, and procedural rules should be relaxed in labor cases to serve substantial justice.