Security & Credit Investigation, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents Feliciano Mercado, Edgar Somosot, and Dante Oliver were employed as security guards by petitioner Security and Credit Investigation, Inc. (petitioner) and assigned to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). In February 1990, about eighteen security guards, including the private respondents, filed a complaint for money claims against petitioner. Most guards withdrew their complaint after petitioner requested them to sign a Release and Quitclaim. Mercado claimed he was pressured to sign and went on leave on March 22, 1990, only to be informed he was suspended. Somosot also refused to sign a Release and Quitclaim on March 22, 1990, and was verbally informed of his termination the next day. Mercado and Somosot filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages. Oliver, on March 27, 1990, refused to sign a Release and Quitclaim and was subsequently given a telegram requiring him to explain his absence without leave, leading him to file a similar complaint. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter found no dismissal or abandonment but ordered reinstatement without backwages and payment of various monetary claims, with partial reimbursement from the CHR. The NLRC affirmed the decision with modification, setting aside the order for the CHR to reimburse petitioner. The Petition: Petitioners assailed the NLRC decision, arguing grave abuse of discretion in ruling that private respondents did not abandon their posts, in computing overtime, 13th month, and service incentive leave differentials, and in setting aside the Labor Arbiter's order for CHR reimbursement.
Issue(s)
Whether the private respondents were illegally dismissed or had abandoned their employment. Whether the computation of overtime, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave benefits was erroneous. Whether the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is liable to reimburse the petitioner for wage increases mandated by R.A. 6727.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC's finding that the private respondents were not illegally dismissed and did not abandon their employment. It modified the NLRC decision by ordering a recomputation of overtime, 13th month, and service incentive leave benefits for a specific period and reinstated the Labor Arbiter's ruling that the CHR is liable to reimburse petitioner P28,500.00 for unpaid wage increases.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal dismissal and abandonment of employment: The Court found no clear proof of dismissal. Mercado's claim was based on not being assigned a post, Somosot's on verbal information of termination, and Oliver's on a telegram asking for explanation of absence. None of them exerted efforts to confirm their dismissal. The Court reiterated that for abandonment to exist, there must be failure to report for work without justifiable reason AND a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, which was negated by the filing of illegal dismissal complaints. Thus, the NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion in affirming the finding that there was neither dismissal nor abandonment. On the computation of monetary benefits: The Court found merit in the petitioner's argument that the Labor Arbiter and NLRC erroneously included the period from September 1, 1988, to June 30, 1989, in the computation of underpayments for overtime, 13th month, and service incentive leave benefits, despite a finding that no underpayment occurred during that specific period. Therefore, a recomputation was necessary to exclude this period. On the reimbursement liability of the CHR: The Court found merit in the petitioner's argument that the NLRC erred in reversing the Labor Arbiter's ruling that the CHR was liable for reimbursement. Citing Section 6 of R.A. 6727, the Court emphasized that in contracts for security services, the prescribed wage increases are to be borne by the principal or client, and the contract is deemed amended accordingly. The CHR, as the principal, was therefore liable for the wage increases from July 1, 1989, to April 15, 1990, and the Labor Arbiter's order for reimbursement was reinstated.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that for abandonment to exist, two elements must concur: (1) the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without justifiable reason; and (2) there must have been a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt acts. The filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal negates the existence of any intention to abandon employment. Furthermore, in contracts for security services, the principal or client is liable for the prescribed wage increases mandated by law, such as R.A. 6727, and the contract is deemed amended accordingly.