ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 145569.February 5, 2001]

SALDO, et al. v. BESSANG PASS SECURITY AGENCY, INC., et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 5 2001.

G.R. No. 145569(Hermenegildo Saldo, et al. v. Bessang Pass Security Agency, Inc., et al.)

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.This a Petition seeks to set aside the Decision dated August 31, 2000 of the Court of Appeals, which reversed the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), that previously affirmed the decision of Executive Labor Arbiter Reynoso Belarmino in RAB Case No. VII-10-0899-93 (NLRC Case No. V-0057-96) as well as its Resolution dated May 28, 1998, denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.

Petitioners Hermenegildo Saldo, Alejandro Almaden, Emmanuel Ladiona, Eddie Santillan and Patricio Armodia were employed as security guards of Bessang Pass Security Agency, all assigned to the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Office in Lahug, Cebu City.They separately filed with the Labor Arbiter complaints against the respondent security agency for underpayment of wages and 13 ^th month pay, as well as non-payment of their overtime pay, rest day, holiday pay, night shift differentials, service incentive leave and allowances.Aside from the above-mentioned money claims, Patricio Armodia and Eddie Santillan also alleged that they were constructively dismissed, their transfers being made with evident as the transfers were made

With evident bad faith.

On September 22, 1995, the Labor arbiter rendered a decision declaring that the transfer of Eddie Santillan and Patricio Armodia to different locations constituted constructive dismissal, and directing the respondent Bessang Pass Security Agency to pay the sum of two hundred-fifty three thousand seventy and 52/100 pesos (P253,070.52) to the complainants.The Labor Arbiter found that the transfers were made in bad faith, as they were made after the complainants first aired their grievances to their detachment commander, Dominador Muana.The Labor Arbiter concluded that the transfers were unfair to the workers, being the preventive measures undertaken by management at the workers' expense in order to prevent further conflicts in the workplace to arise.This was evident a the transfers were made in haste.Furthermore, it was only after such event that the management in haste.Furthermore, it was only after such event that the management decided Saldo was to be retired.

Anent the money claims being pursued by the complainants for underpayment of wages and 13 ^th month pay, non-payment of their overtime pay, rest day, holiday pay night shift differentials, service incentive leave and allowances, the Labor Arbiter also ruled in their favor.The Arbiter gave more credence to the personally handwritten pay-slip records kept by the complainants as evidence of the (lesser) amounts actually received from the company, vis-�-vis the actual company payrolls submitted by the respondents.The Arbiter held that the figures shown therein were consistent and credible evidence, and were not a mere fabrication.On December 9, 1997, the NLRC, with Commissioner Bernabe S. Batuhan, dissenting, affirmed in toto the Labor Arbiter's decision.Bessang Pass moved for reconsideration of the NLRC's judgment, but this was denied in a resolution dated May 28, 1998.

The Court of Appeals in a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 filed before it, found that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion, thereby granting such petition.The Court ruled that the reassignment of the security guards was valid and therefore no constructive dismissal took place with regard to two (2) of the private complainants, herein Patricio Armodia and Eddie Santillan.The Supreme Court has recognized in a number of cases that it is considered management prerogative to transfer an employee from one office to another within the business establishment, provided there is no demotion in rank nor a diminution in pay or salary, benefits and other privileges.It is customary in security guard agencies especially, to transfer or rotate guards from time to time in order to prevent them from becoming too familiar with the employees of the establishments wherein they are assigned, thereby rendering them less effective duties.This prerogative was made clear to the complainants before they were hired, which fact was never denied.Also not in dispute was the fact that this was not the first time a reshuffling of guards took place, as these very guards were reassigned to various DPWH offices in the past.

As the complainants refused to assume their new assignments as dictated by sound business judgment and in accordance with pre-determined and established company policy and practice, it was held that their dismissal from employment was based on proper grounds.The Court of Appeals also found that there was no showing that the transfer was accompanied any a demotion in rank or diminution of salaries, privileges and other benefits which could give credence to their assertion of constructive dismissal.Therefore, no separation pay to petitioners were granted.

With regard the money claims, the Court of Appeals upheld the Company payroll journals as basis for its computation, as opposed to the complainants' personally typewritten payslips.It upheld in toto the computation on the money claims laid out by NLRC Commissioner Batuhan in his dissenting opinion on the aforesaid NLRC decision.

Notably, however, the Court considered the Petitioner-Complainants' money claims for the period from October 27, 1990 to October 27, 1993, the date the complaints were filed.Under Article 291 of the Labor Code, as amended, all money claims arising from employer-employee relations shall be filed within three (3) years from the accrual of the cause of action, other wise they are forever barred.The claims prior to October 27, 1990, had therefore already become stale.

Petitioners are now before this court throughpetition for Certiorari under Rule 45, grounded on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondent CA.They likewise pray for the acceptance of their counter-proposal of monetary awards to herein private respondents based on the official company records.The issues presented for determination can be narrowed down into two :Firstly, Patricio Armodia and Eddie Santillan's charges of illegal constructive dismissal; and the complainant's respective money claims.The petitioners likewise move for the acceptance of their counter-proposal of monetary awards to herein private respondent.

Petitioners make the following assignment of errors: 1) that the conclusions of the Court of Appeals are grounded on speculation, surmise and conjectures when it disregarded the actual testimonies of the private complainants regarding their own claims, as asserted in their respective affidavits under oath; 2) that the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the pay-slips and /or personal records of the complainants that were personally kept by them at the time they were paid salaries, thereby basing their findings of fact on company payrolls which were allegedly signed in blank by the complainants each time their salaries were paid; 3) that the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the findings of the Labor Arbiter that the employer (herein Respondent) was in bad faith when it suddenly reassigned some of the Complainant-Petitioners; 4) that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner-complainants were not illegally dismissed; 5) that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the NLRC.

We uphold the decision of the Court of Appeals, as we find no cogent reason to disturb its findings.This Court has held in a number of cases that it is management prerogative to transfer an employee from one office to another within the business establishment provided there is no demotion in rank, diminution in pay or salary, and other benefits.This privilege is inherent in the employer's right to control and manage its enterprises effectively, based on their own assessment of the employees' individual qualifications, aptitudes and competence, as well as the nature of the employment for which they were hired.This Court cannot accept the position that when an employee opposes his employer's decision to transfer him to another work place, there being no bad faith or underhanded motives on the part of either party, it is the employee's wishes that should be made to prevail. ¹ Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company vs. Laplana, 199 SCRA 485 (1991).

As for the money claims, this court also upholds the computation adopted by the Court of Appeals and the NLRC commissioner in his dissenting opinion of the NLRC decision.In the case of Standard Rice and Corn Mill vs. Dela Cerna, this Court held:

The probative value of the cash vouchers can not be impugned or repudiated by mere affidavits or self-serving allegations that the workers signed blank vouchers.Neither will the contents of the vouchers be controverted by mere presentation of blank forms purporting to be samples thereof.The workers themselves have testified on the genuineness of their signatures. ² 195 SCRA 475, 481 (1991).

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE