Photo from Pexels | Kindel Media
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Willful disobedience or insubordination requires the concurrence of two (2) requisites: (1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful which is characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.
On February 13, 2014, petitioner Allan M. Ador sued respondents Jamila and Company Security Services, Inc., its President Sergio Jamila III, and HR Manager Eddimar O. Arcena for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salary, overtime pay, holiday pay, rest day pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, ECOLA, night shift differential, separation pay, unpaid paternity leave benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Ador claimed that the security agency hired him as security guard. He worked from Monday to Sunday for twelve (12) hours daily on a shifting basis. He did not receive holiday pay, rest day pay, night shift differential, overtime pay, 13th month pay (except PhP3,000.00), service incentive leave pay, and his paternity leave benefits. After he got involved in a brawling incident against a co-employee, the security agency stopped giving him posting assignments from April 2012 to April 2013.
On June 11, 2013, he talked to Arcena and requested for a new assignment. Arcena instructed him to first renew his security guard license and clearances. He was, however, surprised to receive three (3) notices dated June 29, 2013, July 31, 2013, and August 31, 2013 bearing respondents’ plan to terminate him. He reported to respondents’ office every time he received the notices, but respondents refused to give him posting assignments. On September 18, 2013, after receiving the 2nd notice, he gave a letter to the security agency stating that he cannot renew the documents because he did not have money. On November 27, 2013, however, he received a Memorandum terminating his employment for insubordination for ignoring the three (3) notices sent him to report back for work.
During the arbitration conference, respondents informed Ador that he was not dismissed from employment. He was only required to comply with the renewal of his documents under Republic Act No. 5487 or the Private Security Agency Law, specifically his security guard license before an assignment order can be issued to him. Respondents also told Ador to just disregard the termination letter since he had already explained his side on September 18, 2013 but he should first submit his updated requirements so he can be given a post. Instead of renewing his documents, Ador initiated a complaint for illegal dismissal.
In her Decision, Labor Arbiter Marie Josephine C. Suarez found Ador to have been illegally dismissed. According to the Labor Arbiter, Ador did not ignore the notices to report for work which caused his termination for insubordination. He was not able to reply to the notices because the same were belatedly sent to him.
The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. However, respondents are ordered to pay Ador his separation pay computed at one-half month salary for every year of service plus 10% attorney’s fees.
The Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that Ador was neither illegally nor constructively dismissed. While petitioner was on “floating status” from May 12, 2012 to April 11, 2013, no bad faith can be imputed on the security agency. Hence, this petition.
The issue in this case is whether the CA erred in ruling that Ador was neither illegally nor constructively dismissed.
The Supreme Court Decides
The Supreme Court granted the petition. The CA’s Decision and Resolution are reversed and set aside. Petitioner is declared to have been constructively dismissed from employment. Jamila and Company Security Services, Inc. is ordered to pay petitioner the following:
- Backwages computed from May 12, 2012 until the finality of the Decision;
- Separation pay at the rate of one (1) month pay per year of service until the finality of the Decision; and
- Attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award.
Petitioner was constructively dismissed. The security agency misled petitioner into believing that it cannot give him a new posting assignment because his security guard license had already expired. It repeatedly required petitioner to first renew his security guard license or he would not be given a new posting assignment, albeit in truth, petitioner’s security guard license had not at all expired yet.
Petitioner was not guilty of insubordination. Willful disobedience or insubordination requires the concurrence of two (2) requisites: (1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful which is characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge. Both requisites are not present in this case.
The Court held that respondents Jamila III and Arcena should not be held personally liable to pay petitioner’s monetary awards. As a general rule, only the employer-corporation, and not its officers, may be held liable for illegal dismissal of employees. The exception applies when corporate officers acted with bad faith. Here, there was no indication that Jamila III and Arcena acted in bad faith relative to petitioner’s termination.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.