Alert Security & Investigation Agency, Inc. vs. Saidali Pasawilan, et al.

G.R. No. 182397

Villarama, Jr., J.

Sept. 14, 2011

Facts:
-

Respondents Saidali Pasawilan, Wilfredo Verceles and Melchor Bulusan (respondents) were all
employed by Petitioner Alert Security as security guards.
o They were paid P165.00 a day as regular employees and were assigned at the DOST
pursuant to a security service contract between the DOST and Alert Security.
Because they were underpaid, respondents filed a complaint for money claims against Alert
Security and its president and general manager (Manuel Dasig) before the LA.
o As a result of this, they were relieved from their posts at DOST and were not given new
assignments despite the lapse of six months.
o They then filed a joint complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioners.
Petitioners denied that they dismissed the respondents and claimed that from DOST, they (the
respondents) were thereafter detailed at MRT and LRT Compound in Aurora Blvd where the
wages were already adjusted to the latest minimum wage.
o Presented the Duty Detail Orders which showed the re-assignment of respondents.
o In turn, petitioners stated that instead of reporting at the LRTA, petitioners kept on
loitering at the DOST and tried to convince other security guards to file complaints
against Alert Security.
o Thus, on August 3, 1998, Alert Security filed a termination report with DOLE relative to
the termination of respondents.
LA: respondents were illegally dismissed; held both Alert Security and Manuel Dasig liable in
solidum.
NLRC: reversed; said that the fact of dismissal or termination of employment was not sufficiently
established.
CA: reversed;
Hence, this petition.

Issues/held:
-

Respondents were illegally dismissed. Employment cannot be terminated by an employer

without any just or authorized cause.
o As guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution, workers enjoy security of tenure and as such,
may only be terminated for just or authorized cause(s) in accordance with the due process
requirement mandated by law.
Although the SC recognizes the right of employers to shape their own workforce, this
management prerogative must not curtail the basic right of employees to security of tenure.
o Bascon vs CA: The employers power to dismiss must be tempered with the employees
right to security of tenure. Time and again, we have said that the preservation of the
lifeblood of the toiling labourer comes before concern for business profits. Employers
must be reminded to exercise the power to dismiss with great caution, for the State will
not hesitate to come to the succor of workers wrongly dismissed by capricious
employers.

Respondents were relieved from their posts because they filed for money claims against
petitioner. An employee asserting his right and asking for minimum wage is not among the causes
for valid termination in the LC.
Anent the argument that respondents abandoned their postfor such to fall under Art. 282 (b) of
the LC as gross and habitual neglect of duties, there must be the concurrence of two elements:
1. There should be a failure of the employee to report for work without a valid or justifiable
reason;
2. There should be a showing that the employee intended to sever the employer-employee
relationship (manifested by overt acts).
o The fact that respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal is indicative of their
intention to remain employed with petitioners considering that one of their prayers is for
re-instatement.
o Also, respondents continued to report for work/loiter in the DOSTnot an indication of
abandonment.
Also, there is no showing that respondents were notified of their new assignments.
o The right of employers to transfer employees is, like all rights, subject to limitations; it
must not be unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee nor should it
involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits.
In addition to this, there should of course be proper and effective notice to the employee
concerned. It is the employers burden to show that the employee was duly notified of the
transfer.
o It is hard to believe that after being transferred to LRTA where the wages are better,
respondents would still refuse transfer.
However, petitioner Manuel Dasig should not be held solidarily liable with Alert Security.
o There is no evidence to indicate that Dasig is using the veil of corporate fiction to defeat
public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime, nor is there any
showing that Alert Security has folded up its business or is reneging its obligations.

Judgment Affirmed with Modification.