Lanzaderas v. Amethyst Security And General Services

QUISUMBING, J.:

This petition for review assails the resolutions dated January 05, 20001 and May 19, 2000,2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 56347. Said resolutions had dismissed the petition under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, earlier filed by petitioners in the appellate court to challenge the resolution dated March 19, 19993 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC CA No. M-004619-98. Petitioners were the complainants in RAB CASES NO.

10-03-00233-98, 10-03-00234-98, and 10-04-00254-98. These were consolidated cases for alleged illegal dismissal with money claims against sister companies Resin Industrial Chemical Corp., (RICC) and Philippine Iron Construction and Marine Works, Inc., (PICMW) and their security services provider, Amethyst Security and General Services Inc. (formerly Calmar Security Agency). The Labor Arbiter in a decision4 dated November 27, 1998 found in favor of complainants (herein petitioners).

Respondents herein filed their appeal with the NLRC. And the NLRC in a resolution5 dated March 19, 1999 reversed and set aside the ruling of the Labor Arbiter. Then in a resolution6 dated October 29, 1999, the NLRC denied herein petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

The factual antecedents of the instant petition, as culled from the records of the case, are as follows: Respondent RICC is engaged in the manufacture of industrial glue at Nahalinan, Jasaan, Misamis Oriental. It leased a portion of its compound to its sister company, PICMW, which operated a shipbuilding and repair facility. To secure their properties and personnel, RICC and PICMW entered into separate service contracts for detailing of security guards with respondent Amethyst Security.

Amethyst had been RICC/PICMW's security contractor since 1968. One of the conditions of the service contracts between Amethyst and RICC/PICMW was for Amethyst to supply the latter companies with security guards who must be between 25 to 45 years of age. The aforesaid condition was maintained with every renewal of the service contracts.7 Per payrolls submitted by Amethyst, the petitioners who signed therein were paid the minimum wage and benefits provided for by law, to wit: regular wage, nightshift differentials, 5-day incentive leave pay, cost of living allowance, overtime pay, and holiday pay.8 When RICC/PICMW renewed their service contract with Amethyst in January 1998, respondent RICC in a letter dated January 15, 1998, reminded Amethyst of their stipulated age limit for the latter's guards detailed at the RICC/PICMW compound.9 This prompted respondent Amethyst to issue an order on January 23, 1998, directing all security guards to submit copies of their respective Birth Certificates.

On January 30, 1998, petitioners who were at that time over 45 years of age received Memorandum/Relief Orders10 relieving them from their existing postings as security guards of Amethyst with RICC/PICMW, effective February 1, 1998. Petitioners were instructed to report to the main office of Amethyst for reassignment. The order further stated that the failure of petitioners to comply with the directive would be construed as a manifestation of their lack of interest to continue working as security personnel and Amethyst would consider them absent without official leave (AWOL).11 On April 21, 1998, Amethyst issued a Detail Order informing petitioners that it had been able to renegotiate their assignments with RICC/PICMW.

They were ordered to report to one Jose Pitas, Detachment Head of RICC/PICMW for their new assignment as firewatch guards. Petitioners were again warned that failure to report to Pitas on May 1, 1998, would mean that they were no longer interested in working as security guards and would be considered AWOL.12 According to respondent Amethyst, it gave petitioners the option to either continue working for PICMW as firewatchers or be transferred to Cagayan de Oro for new assignments. The respondents alleged that the petitioners chose neither option but instead failed to report for work on February 1, 1998.

Thereafter, petitioners filed on March 23, 1998 and April 2, 1998, their separate complaints for illegal dismissal.13 On November 27, 1998, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the petitioners had been constructively dismissed from their employment. He stated that the change of assignments from security guards to firewatch guards was tantamount to a demotion, as the latter posting was of a lower category with corresponding diminution in pay. He also opined that although no employer-employee relationship existed between petitioners and respondents RICC/PICMW, the latter were considered indirect employers of petitioners, and thus, solidarily liable with respondent security agency pursuant to Article 10714 of the Labor Code.15 The decretal portion of the Labor Arbiter's decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: 1. declaring complainants Prisco Lanzaderas, Samuel Sadicon, Angelo Mabanta, Eleno Aceron, Vicente Giberson, Longino Mambatac, and Salvador Virtudazo, illegally dismissed from their respective jobs; 2. directing respondents Amethyst Security and General Services, Inc., (Formerly Calmar Security Agency), Philippine Iron Construction and Marine Works, Inc. (PICMW) and Resin Industrial Chemical Corporation, to pay the above named complainants jointly and severally, the total sum of One Million Two Hundred Fifty One Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Four Pesos and 41/100 (₱1,251,664.41) representing complainants total awarded monetary benefits. Complainants' other claims are dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.16 The respondents appealed to the NLRC alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC reversed and set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter on the ground that the relief of the petitioners from their posts was a legitimate exercise of business prerogative by RICC/PICMW. According to the NLRC, such exercise cannot be challenged for being malicious, capricious, or illegal. The NLRC resolution limited the monetary award to petitioners for salary differential, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondents are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally complainants' salary differential for the period from December 18, 1997 to January 31, 1998 as follows: Prisco Lanzaderas - ₱289.86 Samuel Sedicon - 289.86 Angelo Mabanta - 289.86 Vicente Giberson - 366.24 Longino Mambatac - 366.24 Salvador Virtudazo - 366.24 Eleno Aceron - 366.24