Discussion

1. Complainants were dismissed from their employment without just or valid cause

and without due process.

Since complainants are regular employees of the Company, they have the right to security of

tenure. They may only be dismissed for any just or authorized causes provided for under the

Labor Code and the established rules and regulations of the Company. Thus, Article 279 of the

Labor Code provides that:

“ In case of regular employment, the employee shall not terminate the services of an

employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. xxx xxx.”

Moreover, Article 280 of the Labor Code provides:

“Article 280. REGULAR AND CASUAL EMPLOYMENT – The provisions of

written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the

parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged

to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of

the employer, xxx

xxx Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service,

whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with

respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such

activity exists.”

It must be pointed out that complainant Crucis was hired in the year 2016 and has worked

for the Company until May 31, 2022 or for about five years. Complainant has been employed
with the Respondent Company since January 11, 2018 up to May 8, 2022 or for about four years.

As for Complainant she has been employed from February 20, 2021 to May 31, 2022 or for a

total duration of one year and three months. Complainants were hired as lady guard where they

are tasked with the monitoring of premises of the Respondent company’s clients. Such task given

to the complainants are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the

employer. Thus, all the complainants are regular employees who may only be terminated from

their employment for a just or authorized cause.

In the case of Maneja vs. NLRC and Manila Midtown Hotel (290 SCRA 603), the

Supreme Court ruled that:

“ Substantive due process mandates that an employee can only be dismissed based

on just cause or authorize causes. Procedural due process requires further that he can

only be dismissed after he has been given an opportunity to be heard. The import of due

process necessitates the compliance of these two aspects.”

In the case of herein Complainants, the employer never gave grounds to support the

employees’ dismissal. They were never given a memo nor any letter informing them of their

termination. In the case of Complainant she was only asked if she wants to file for vacation leave

only to be informed later on that a new team leader has been assigned to her old post. As for

Complainants and, both were merely informed that they will be reassigned to another Puregold

branch but they never received any job assignment.

 Considering therefore that respondents failed to observe the fundamental right to due

process in dismissing herein complainant, it is just proper that this Honorable Labor Arbiter

declare respondents guilty of illegal dismissal.

2. Complainants are entitled to their claims for monetary benefits and moral and

exemplary damages

An illegally dismissed employee shall be entitled to backwages, along with the reinstatement

without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, or in lieu thereof, payment of separation

pay. The Supreme Court has ruled in Caliguia vs. NLRC, 264 SCRA 110, that an illegally

dismissed employee may be awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement where the

impossibility of reinstatement may be discounted considering that his position or any equivalent

position may no longer be available and that the protracted litigation may have seriously

antagonized the relationship of the parties so as to render reinstatement impractical. In this case,

the Complainants are entitled to the relief granted in the aforementioned law and jurisprudence.

Moreover, aside from being illegally dismissed, herein Complainants never received

Overtime pay during the entire duration of their employment. Complainants report for duty for

12 hours everyday which means they rendered four hours of Overtime work daily, from the time

they were hired up to the time they were illegally dismissed. Article 83 of the Labor Code

provides that the normal hours of work of any employee shall not exceed eight (8) hours a day.

Furthermore, work may be performed beyond the eight (8) hours a day provided that the

employee is paid for the overtime work an additional compensation equivalent to his regular
wage plus at least twenty-five percent (25%) thereof. Work performed beyond eight hours on a

holiday or rest day shall be paid an additional compensation equivalent to the rate of the first

eight hours on a holiday or a rest day plus thirty percent (30%) thereof.

Also, the herein Respondents are liable for payment of 13th month pay. Under the Labor

Code, every worker shall be paid his daily regular daily wage during regular holidays, except in

retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten workers. Here, the

Complainants were never paid any holiday pay despite reporting for duty on holidays.