Philippine Military Veterans Security And Investigation Agency And/Or Ramon Macorol v. Court Of Appeals

CARPIO, J.:

The Case This is a petition for review1 of the Decision2 dated 31 March 1999 and the Resolution dated 23 June 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51930. The Court of Appeals dismissed the special civil action for certiorari, assailing the resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC'). The NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter holding that Teodulo C. Alcovendas, Cesar W. Labrador,3 and Jordan T. Tacanloy (private respondents') were illegally dismissed.

The Facts On 13 July 1993, Teodulo C. Alcovendas (Alcovendas'), Cesar W. Labrador (Labrador'), andJordan T. Tacanloy (Tacanloy') filed a case against Philippine Military Veterans Security and Investigation Agencyand its President and General Manager, Ramon Macorol (petitioners') for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, night differential pay, service incentive leave pay, rest day pay, and 13th month pay. The evidence submitted by private respondents to the Labor Arbiter show their employment record with Philippine Military Veterans Security and Investigation Agency(PMVSIA') as follows: 1) Teodulo Alcovendas 8/31/85 - 12/31/86 Security Guard ₱1,000/month 1/1/87- 12/30/90 Security Guard ₱1,200/month 1/1/91- 8/31/92 Security Officer ₱1,600/month 8/31/92 - 2/23/93 Inspector ₱2,500/month 2) Cesar W. Labrador 8/6/86 - 1/30/87 Security Aide/LO₱2,000/month 1/1/87 - 1/8/91 LO/Inspector₱2,500/month 1/9/91 - 3/31/92 Operation Manager₱3,000/month 3) Jordan T. Tacanloy 2/20/92 - 2/28/93 Security Guard₱2,300/month 3/1/93- 8/18/93 Security Guard₱3,200/month4 Petitioners claim that Alcovendas resigned from his job.

However, petitioners failed to present a copy of Alcovendas' resignation letter because Alcovendas allegedly stole it from petitioners' files to make it appear that he did not resign from his job.The prosecutor dismissed the case for qualified theft that petitioners filed against Alcovendas.However, petitioners insist that the dismissal is not binding on the labor tribunal.Petitioners assert that dismissal for loss of confidence based on suspected theft of company property is a valid cause for dismissal even if the employee is subsequently acquitted. Petitioners allege that the dismissal of Labrador and Tacanloy was due to loss of trust and confidence. As Operations Manager, Labrador allegedly accepted unqualified applicants for security guards and facilitated the processing of their papers.

Tacanloy, on the other hand, allegedly engaged in black propaganda intended to discredit petitioners' reputation. Petitioners further allege that Tacanloy, in connivance with Alcovendas and Labrador, filed a malicious suit against petitioners. On 8 July 1996, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of private respondents.

The Labor Arbiter held that petitioners illegally dismissed private respondents.The Labor Arbiter ordered the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.In the computation of the money claims, the Labor Arbiter took into consideration the three-year prescriptive period within which money claims should be filed.5The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is herebyrendered ordering respondents to pay complainants the total amount of ₱80,829.46 representing their separation pay and underpayment of wages inclusive of 10% attorney's fees, individually computed as follows: 1. TEODULO C. ALCOVENDAS: Underpayment 7/21/90 ' 01/07/91 = 5.53 mos. ₱3,959.55 ' ₱3,843.84 = ₱115.71 x 5.53 mos. = - - - - - - - - - - - - - ₱639.88 1/08/91 ' 02/23/93 = 25.50 mos. ₱4,402.12 ' ₱3,843.84 = ₱558.28 x 25.50 mos. = - - - - - - - - - - - - 14,236.14