JEANEFER P. PEREZ, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PREMIUM SECURITY & INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC. / FELIX ARAGON, RESPONDENTS.
BATO, JR., J.:
The instant case stemmed from a Complaint[4] filed by petitioner Jeanefer P. Perez against Premium Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. (PSIA) and its President, Felix Aragon, before the NLRC, National Capital Region, Quezon City. His causes of action include illegal dismissal, nonpayment of overtime pay, nonpayment of holiday pay and attorney’s fees.
In his position paper[5] filed before the Labor Arbiter, petitioner averred that he started working for PSIA on 05 March 2009. Before working for PSIA, he worked for Bonifacio Security Services, a sister company of PSIA. On 21 March 2011, while he was assigned at Ayala Center, Makati City, he had an argument with his fellow security guard while they were roving the Edsa Car Park. Thereafter, they went back to their Ayala Center Association Office Base wherein their Officer-in-Charge accused him of “pagkasa ng armalite sa kasama” (cocking a gun at his companion). Despite his denial of the accusation levied against him, his gun was taken away from him and he was told to go home. Without due process and a valid cause, he was never again given a posting.
For their part, PSIA and Felix Aragon alleged in their Position Paper[6] that petitioner was dismissed for a just cause after an investigation. That at around 11:45 P.M. on 21 March 2011, Salvador Sordevilla, a security guard assigned in Glorietta Complex, went to their Ayala Center Association Office and reported to Edwin Balasabas, OIC of the security personnel, that an altercation ensued between him and herein petitioner Perez. Allegedly, while petitioner and Sordevilla were on their tour of duty, Sordevilla reminded petitioner not to use a cellular phone. To which petitioner replied: “wag mo akong pakialaman, baka gusto mong isama kita sa problema ko.” Thereafter, the two continued their tour of duty. When they reached a station road, petitioner asked Sordevilla what sector they were in, and Sordevilla answered that petitioner should be the one to know their location since he was the one holding the radio. Petitioner, in turn, said: “di wala tayong tanungan.” When they reached the corner of Park Square, petitioner suddenly cocked his M-16 rifle and challenged Sordevilla to also get his gun “para magkaalaman na.” Sordevilla did not retaliate but told petitioner that “nakakatatlong beses mo na yan ginagawa sa ’kin. Hindi na tama ‘yang ginagawa mo.” Sordevilla then reported said incident to Balasabas.
As a preventive measure, Balasabas confiscated the firearms of both petitioner and Sordevilla. Balasabas reported the incident to PSIA and an investigation transpired. In a Notice[7] dated 24 March 2011, petitioner was directed to explain his version of the incident. On even date, petitioner submitted his explanation wherein he denied cocking his M-16 rifle at Sordevilla. He, however, admitted that Sordevilla told him not to use his cellular phone while they were on duty and when he asked Sordevilla what area they were in, the latter replied that he should be the one to know their position.
An administrative hearing was also conducted by PSIA on 26 March 2011, wherein petitioner admitted that during his altercation with Sordevilla, he took his firearm and hit the weapon’s magazine or ammunition storage and feeding devise, to wit: “tapos po kinuha ko ang baril sa kabilang upo-an tapos pinalo ko yong magasin.” PSIA likewise took into consideration the statements of Balasabas and the other security guards assigned in Ayala Center, namely, Marnylson Mendoza, Randy Letada and Lloyd Feliciano, to the effect that petitioner is always hot headed and has a penchant for cursing his fellow security guards.
After a comprehensive evaluation of the facts and evidence, PSIA decided to terminate petitioner for serious misconduct. However, petitioner refused to receive the Notice of Dismissal[8] dated 15 April 2011 signed by respondent Aragon. Hence, said notice of dismissal was mailed to petitioner’s residential address.
On 23 July 2012, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision[9] declaring that no illegal dismissal took place since petitioner was terminated for a just cause. Nonetheless, petitioner was awarded holiday pay and attorney’s fees. The decretal portion of said Decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the complaint for illegal dismissal for lack of merit.
Respondents Premium Security and Investigation Agency, Inc./Felix Aragon are however, ordered to pay complainant Jeanefer P. Perez the amount of EIGHT THOUSAND FIFTY EIGHT PESOS & 60/100 (P8,058.60) representing his holiday pay and attorney’s fees.
All other claims are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.”
Thereafter, petitioner filed a Memorandum of Appeal[10] on the ground that the Labor Arbiter committed grave abuse of discretion in finding for the private respondents.
Via the assailed 29 November 2012 Decision,[11] the NLRC denied petitioner’s appeal for having been filed beyond the reglementary period. The NLRC likewise delved into the merits of petitioner’s appeal but nonetheless found it to be unmeritorious. The NLRC ruled as follows:
“…While complainant denied having cocked his firearm at Sordevilla, complainant nevertheless admitted during investigation that while he and Sordevilla were having a discussion ‘kinuha ko ang baril sa kabilang upo-an tapos pinalo ko yong magasin’ (p. 61, Records). In this connection, we agree with the respondents that complainant’s actuations manifested threat to the life and limb of his roving partner, Sordevilla. Complainant, as a security guard, is expected to safeguard the person and properties of respondents’ clients and not to engage in a fight with anybody moreso with a co-security guard. We find complainant’s dismissal justified.
Complainant’s contention that he is entitled to his money claims is likewise untenable. A perusal of the payslips (pp. 23 to 30, Records) which complainant himself attached to his position paper, reveals that he was paid his overtime pay ranging from 30% to 200% of his basic pay.
In fine, in the absence of evidence showing that the Labor Arbiter whimsically and capriciously rendered the decision, we affirm (Filcon Mfg. vs. NLRC, 199 SCRA 814).
WHEREFORE, the appeal of complainant is hereby DISMISSED for having been filed out of time and DENIED for lack of merit. The decision dated 23 July 2010 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.”
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the NLRC via the assailed Resolution[12] dated 28 January 2013.
Hence, the instant petition with the following issues for the Court’s resolution:
“I
WHETHER PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.
II
WHETHER PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DISMISSING PETITIONER’S MONEY CLAIMS. III WHETHER PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DISMISSING OUTRIGHT PETITIONER’S MERITORIOUS APPEAL.”[13]
The above-quoted issues boil down to whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the Labor Arbiter’s ruling that the petitioner was validly terminated from his job.
By way of Comment,[14] the private respondents contend that the petitioner’s arguments are mere reiterations of the ones already resolved by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC. Furthermore, petitioner miserably failed to substantiate his claim of abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC.
Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and arbitrary exercise of judgment as is equivalent, in the eyes of the law, to lack of jurisdiction.[15] There is grave abuse of discretion where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[16] Through time, the meaning of grave abuse of discretion has been expanded to include any action done contrary to the constitution, the law or jurisprudence.[17]
Guided by the aforementioned legal precepts, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in concluding that petitioner was dismissed for a just cause after the procedural requirements were observed.
Article 282(A) of the Labor Code provides that an employee may be dismissed on the ground of serious misconduct or willful disobedience of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work. Misconduct is improper or wrongful conduct; it is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. The misconduct, to be serious within the meaning of the Labor Code, must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. It is also important that the misconduct be in connection with the employee’s work to constitute just cause for his separation.[18]
In the present case, it has been established that petitioner was annoyed with his co-security guard for telling him not to use his cellular phone while on duty. It is also an established fact that petitioner had an argument with his co-security guard. While petitioner has consistently denied cocking his gun and challenging his co-security guard to a duel, the minutes of the administrative hearing conducted by PSIA reveal that he admitted to the following: “kinuha ko ang baril ko sa kabilang upo-an tapos pinalo ko yong magasin.”[19]
The Court is in accord with the Labor Arbiter and NLRC that by his actuations, petitioner has committed serious misconduct. As a security guard, he should have exercised due diligence in handling his service firearm. Moreover, he should not have engaged in an argument with his co-security guard who merely advised him not to use his cellular phone while on duty. He should have exercised coolheadedness since he was on duty at that time and had with him an M-16 armalite riffle.
Taking all these circumstances collectively, the Court is convinced that PSIA had sufficient and valid reasons in terminating the services of petitioner. His continued employment would be patently inimical to PSIA’s interest. The need for security guards to be composed, observe company rules and exercise due diligence in handling their service firearms cannot be downplayed.
An employer has the right to regulate, according to its discretion and best judgment, all aspects of employment, including work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of workers.[20] So long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, the exercise of this management prerogative must be upheld.[21]
The Court likewise finds that PSIA observed the proper procedure in terminating petitioner’s services, as set forth in Section 2, Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.[22] A review of the record shows that petitioner was furnished with a written notice[23] informing him of the charge against him and giving him a chance to submit his written explanation. An administrative hearing was conducted where he was allowed to further explain his version of the incident. PSIA took into consideration all the pieces of evidence before it rendered its decision. Thereafter, petitioner was furnished with a written notice[24] informing him of the result of PSIA’s investigation and its decision to terminate his services.
Petitioner’s contention that he is entitled to his money claims is likewise untenable. As ruled by the NLRC, petitioner’s pay slips[25] reveal that he was paid his overtime pay ranging from 30% to 200% of his basic pay.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DENIED. The assailed 29 November 2012 Decision and 28 January 2013 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC-LAC No. 10-002895-12 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Zalameda and Reyes-Carpio,[*] JJ., concur.
[*] Acting Junior Member vice J. Diy per Office Order No. 283-14-ABR dated June 16, 2014.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-18.
[2] Rollo, pp. 23-29.
[3] Rollo, pp. 43-44.
[4] Rollo, pp. 46-47.
[5] Rollo, pp. 49-58.
[6] Rollo, pp. 70-89.
[7] Rollo, p. 96.
[8] Rollo, p. 118.
[9] Rollo, pp. 166-172.
[10] Rollo, pp. 174-191.
[11] Supra, at note 2.
[12] Supra, at note 3.
[13] Petition, pp. 6-7; Rollo, pp. 9-10.
[14] Rollo, pp. 207-214.
[15] Vda. De Bacaling vs. Laguna, 54 SCRA 243, p. 251 [1973]; Bacelonia vs. CA, 397 SCRA 286, p. 291 [2003].
[16] Cuison vs. CA, 289 SCRA 159, p. 171 [1998]; Benito vs. COMELEC, 349 SCRA 705, p. 712 [2001].
[17] Republic vs. Cocofed, 372 SCRA 462, p. 493 [2001].
[18] Philippine Long Distance Company vs. The Late Romeo F. Bolso, G.R. No. 159701, August 17, 2007.
[19] Rollo, p. 100.
[20] Reyes-Rayel vs. Philippine Luen Thai Holdings, G.R. No. 174893, July 11, 2012.
[21] Id.
[22] “Section 2. Standard of due process: requirements of notice. – In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed.
I. For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Labor Code:
(a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side;
(b) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the employee so desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence, or rebut the evidence presented against him; and
(c) A written notice [of] termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination.”
[23] Rollo, p. 96.
[24] Rollo, pp. 118.
[25] Rollo, pp. 62-69.