Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Emeritus Security and Maintenance Systems, Inc. vs. Dailig
Emeritus Security and Maintenance Systems, Inc. vs. Dailig
Emeritus Security and Maintenance Systems, Inc. vs. Dailig
EMERITUS
SECURITY
AND
MAINTENANCE
SYSTEMS, INC., petitioner, vs. JANRIE C. DAILIG,
respondent.
Labor Law Security Guards Floating Status Constructive
Dismissals The Supreme Court agrees with the ruling of the
Labor Arbiter, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and
Court of Appeals (CA) that a floating status of a security guard,
such as respondent, for more than six months constitutes
constructive dismissal.The Court agrees with the ruling of the
Labor Arbiter, NLRC and Court of Appeals that a floating status
of a security guard, such as respondent, for more than six months
constitutes constructive dismissal. In Nationwide Security and
Allied Services, Inc. v. Valderama, 644 SCRA 299 (2011), the
Court held: x x x the temporary inactivity or floating status of
security guards should continue only for six months. Otherwise,
the security agency concerned could be liable for constructive
dismissal. The failure of petitioner to give respondent a work
assignment beyond the reasonable sixmonth period makes it
liable for constructive dismissal.
Remedial Law Appeals Substantial Evidence Factual
findings of quasijudicial bodies like the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), if supported by substantial evidence, are
accorded respect and even finality by this Court, more so when
they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter.The Court notes
that the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals unanimously
found that respondent was illegally dismissed by petitioner.
Factual findings of quasijudicial bodies like the NLRC, if
supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even
finality by this Court, more so when they coincide with those of
the Labor Arbiter. Such factual findings are given more weight
when the same are affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Court
finds no reason to depart from the foregoing rule.
Same Reinstatement Separation Pay Reinstatement is the
general rule, while the award of separation pay is the exception.
_______________
*SECOND DIVISION.
573
574
RESOLUTION
CARPIO,J.:
The Case
This petition for review1 assails the 25 May 2012
Decision2 and 11 December 2012 Resolution3 of the Court
of Appeals in C.A.G.R. S.P. No. 111904. Affirming with
modification the decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), the Court of Appeals found
= P180,381.60
= 15,031.80
= 2,505.30
P197,918.706
The Issues
The issues are (1) whether respondent was illegally
dismissed by respondent and (2) if he was, whether
respondent is entitled to separation pay, instead of
reinstatement.
The Ruling of the Court
The Court affirms the finding of illegal dismissal of the
579
Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.