Solgus Corporation v. Court Of Appeals

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside: (a) the Decision,1 dated 23 April 2002; and (b) the Resolution,2 dated 20 January 2003, rendered by public respondent Court of Appeals. The factual antecedents of this case are: On different dates,3 complainants Alejandro Alagos (Alagos), Diosdado Telin (Telin) (private respondents in this petition), Jerry Emano (Emano),4 Edwin Lacerna (Lacerna), Armando Ballon (Ballon), Garry Soriano (Soriano), Jimmy Menor, Jr. (Menor), Roldan Deseo (Deseo), and Dominador Vega (Vega) were hired as security guards by petitioner Solgus Corporation (Solgus), a duly licensed security and investigation agency, and then assigned to its clients. Sometime during the first quarter of 1994, they separately filed complaints5 for illegal dismissal and underpayment of salaries and related benefits against the above mentioned corporation and its principals.

They alleged that at the time of their hiring, there was no stipulation that they were being hired as probationary employees; that they worked twelve (12) hours daily; that they were made to sign blank payrolls; that they were summarily dismissed from employment; and that at the time of their dismissal, they were each paid ₱3,800.00 monthly (except for Emano and Deseo, who were paid monthly salaries of ₱3,600.00 and ₱3,200.00, respectively). The complaints were later consolidated.6 On 25 April 1994, the complaint of Vega was dismissed for lack of interest to prosecute.7 In evading liability, Solgus alleged that complainants Soriano, Emano and Deseo were probationary employees who, due to their unsatisfactory performance as shown by the feedback of the clients where they were assigned, failed to pass the six-month probationary period; that the other complainants were removed from their posts upon the request of Solgus' clients; that, thereafter, they were repeatedly required to report for work at its head office but they refused to do so; that it was, therefore, constrained to consider them to have abandoned their jobs; that it was not true that the complainants were required to sign blank payrolls; and that the complainants had the burden of proving their money claims.8 On 5 December 1996,9 the Labor Arbiter issued an Order declaring the instant case submitted for resolution.

The Order in part reads: [I]nstant case is deemed submitted for decision based on the pleadings and records on hand. Be this as it may, parties are however given fifteen (15) days upon receipt of this Order to file/submit their last responsive pleadings on this case.10 On 29 August 1997, Solgus submitted a Memorandum alleging that: complainants Telin,11 Lacerna,12 Emano,13 Ballon,14 Menor, Jr.,15 and Alagos16 had executed Affidavits of Desistance evidencing that their complaints had been amicably settled; and the complaints of Deseo and Soriano should be dismissed because they failed to complete their six-month probationary period and were, therefore, not regular employees.17 In a Decision18 dated 15 October 1997, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints and affirmed the validity of the Affidavits of Desistance and held:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaints of Diosdado Telin, Alejandro Alagos, Edwin Lacerna and Gerry Emano with prejudice. Additionally, the complaint of Jimmy Menor, Jr. and that of Dominador Vega and Armando Ballon elsewhere mentioned in this decision are likewise dismissed with prejudice. However, respondent Solgus Corporation is hereby ordered to pay complainants Garry Soriano and Roldan Deseo their respective salary differentials in accordance with the computation of the monetary awards due the said complainants hereunder indicated, as follows: Garry Soriano 9/28/93 - 12/15/93 = 2.60 mos. ₱4,402.12 - ₱3,800.00 = ₱602.12 ₱602.12 x 2.60 mos. ₱ 1,565.51 12/16/93 - 1/11/94 = .90 mos. ₱5,016.91 - ₱3,800.00 = ₱1,216.91 ₱1,216.91 x .90 mos. 1,095.21 Ten (10%) percent Attorney's Fees 266.07