[G.R. NO. 149506.June
ALPHA INVESTIGATION & SECURITY AGENCY, INC. vs. NLRC
Quoted hereunder, for
your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 18 2003.
G.R. NO. 149506 (Alpha Investigation
& Security Agency, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Jose
Petitioner Alpha Investigation & Security Agency, Inc.,
(AISA) assails the August 24, 2001 Decisioncralaw
of the Court of Appeals, affirming the August 17, 1998 Resolutioncralaw
of the National Labor Relations Commission, (NLRC) which, in turn, affirmed the
Labor Arbiter's decision, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Alpha Investigation
Agency, Inc. is hereby ordered to pay complainant Guarino the following:
1. Backwages for one
(1) year and seven
(7) months P90,870.32
2. Separation pay of
one (1) month for
every year of
3. Thirteenth month
pay for three (3)
The record shows that, sometime in January 1991, private
respondent was hired as a security guard by petitioner and was assigned at Pier
6, Manila North Harbor.
On September 13, 1994, private respondent was charged with murder
for shooting a man to death while on duty and. was detained at the Manila City
Jail from September 21, 1994 until February 22, 1996 when he posted a P10,000
Upon his release, private respondent immediately reported for
work but petitioner refused to give him any assignment.
Feeling abandoned by his employer, private respondent filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment/ non-payment of salaries and
Petitioner argued that private respondent abandoned his job when
he refused to take his old post.
The labor arbiter decided in favor of private respondent. This
was affirmed by the NLRC on appeal.
A petition and a subsequent motion for reconsideration at the
Court of Appeals were unsuccessful.
Thus, the instant petition which must also fail.
For abandonment to be sustained as a just and valid cause for
dismissal, the employer must show the unjustified refusal of the employee to
report for work and his clear and deliberate intent to sever the
Petitioner alleges that it sent a written order to private
respondent directing him to report for work but he refused to take his old
post. However, there is no proof that private respondent received the alleged
order. Moreover, private respondent immediately reported for work after his
release. Thus, the NLRC correctly ruled out abandonment on the ground that mere
allegation was not evidence. True, proceedings before the NLRC are not bound by
technical rules but this does not mean that the rules on proving allegations
are entirely dispensed with.cralaw
The Court has ruled that factual findings of the NLRC, particularly when they
coincide with those of the labor arbiter, are accorded not only respect but
The burden of proof to show that the dismissal of an employee is
for a just cause rests on the employer.cralaw Petitioner failed to overcome such
burden. Thus, the award of full backwages and separation pay is in order.
The principle of "no
work, no pay cannot be applied in the case at bar. First, petitioner never
questioned in all its pleadings that the alleged shooting by private respondent
was in the performance of his duty as a security guard. Second, private
respondent's work interruption due to his detention was beyond his control.
Petitioner did not assist private respondent during his two-year incarceration
when he could have been released sooner had petitioner only helped him with the
Justice and equity demand that petitioner be prevented from using
private respondent's unfortunate incarceration for its own unconscionable
petition is hereby DENIED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court