EMERITUS SECURITY AND MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS vs. JANRIE C. DAILIG dismissal.
dismissal. Further, the Court notes that the LA, NLRC, and CA unanimously found
J. Carpio | April 2, 2014
TOPIC: Reinstatement – Art. 294 (279)
Exceptions to reinstatement despite ID
In Aug. 2000, Emeritus hired Janrie as a security guard. During his employment,
Janrie was assigned to various clients, the last being Panasonic in Calamba starting
Dec. 16, 2004. On Dec. 10, 2005, Janrie was relieved from his post.
On Jan. 27, 2006, Janrie sued for underpayment of wages, non-payment of holiday
pay, premium pay for rest day and underpayment of ECOLA before DOLE NCR. The
hearing officer recommended its dismissal since the claims were already paid.
On Jun. 16, 2006, Janrie sued for illegal dismissal and payment of separation pay
against Emeritus before the NLRC. On Jul. 14, 2006, Janrie filed another complaint
for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries and non-payment of full backwages
before the NLRC. Janrie argued that if an employee is on floating status for more than
6 months; such employee is deemed illegally dismissed.
Emeritus denied dismissing Janrie. Emeritus admitted that it relieved Janrie from his
last assignment; however, Emeritus required Janrie to report within 48 hours from
receipt of the order of relief and Janrie allegedly failed to comply. Emeritus claimed
that on Jan. 27, 2006, it sent Janrie a notice to report within 72 hours from receipt.
Emeritus further alleged that it informed Janrie that he had been absent without
official leave for Jan. 2006 and that his failure to report within 72 hours from receipt
would mean that he was no longer interested to continue his employment.
Emeritus also claimed that there was no showing that Janrie was prevented from
returning to work and that it consistently manifested its willingness to reinstate him to
his former position. In addition, the fact that there was no termination letter sent to
Janrie purportedly proves that Janrie was not dismissed.
LA: Janrie have been illegally dismissed.
 Ordered Emeritus to reinstate Janrie and pay him backwages from his
illegal dismissal until reinstatement.
 Denied Janrie’s claim for underpayment for lack of merit.
NLRC: Dismissed Emeritus’ appeal for lack of merit.
 Also denied Emeritus’ MFR.
CA: Affirmed the LA and NLRC.
 However, the CA set aside LA and NLRC’s reinstatement order.
 Instead, the CA ordered payment of separation pay.
ISSUES / RULINGS
1. WON Janrie was illegally dismissed?
YES. The Court agrees with the ruling of the LA, NLRC and CA that a floating status
of a security guard, such as Janrie, for more than six months constitutes constructive
that Janrie was illegally dismissed by Emeritus.
Factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, if supported by substantial
evidence, are accorded respect, even finality by the SC, more so when they coincide
with those of the LA. Such factual findings are given more weight when the same are
affirmed by the CA. The Court finds no reason to depart from the foregoing rule.
2. If Janrie was illegally dismissed, WON he is entitled to separation pay instead of
reinstatement?
NO. Article 279 of the Labor Code of the Philippines mandates the reinstatement of
an illegally dismissed employee. Reinstatement is the general rule, while the award of
separation pay is the exception. The circumstances warranting the grant of separation
pay, in lieu of reinstatement, are laid down by the Court in Globe-Mackay Cable and
Radio Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission:
Over time, the following reasons have been advanced by the Court for denying
reinstatement under the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto:
 That reinstatement can no longer be effected in view of the long passage of time
(22 years of litigation) or because of the realities of the situation;
 That it would be ‘inimical to the employer’s interest;’ or that reinstatement may no
longer be feasible;
 That it will not serve the best interests of the parties involved;
 That the company would be prejudiced by the workers’ continued employment;
 That it will not serve any prudent purpose as when supervening facts have
transpired making reinstatement unjust or inequitable or, to an increasing extent,
due to the atmosphere of ‘antipathy and antagonism’ or ‘strained relations’ or
‘irretrievable estrangement’ between the employer and the employee.
Janrie admits receiving a reinstatement notice from Emeritus. Thereafter, he was
assigned to one of Emeritus’ clients. However, Janrie points out that he was not
reinstated by Emeritus but was employed by another company, Emme Security and
Maintenance Systems, Inc. (Emme). Thus, for him, he was not reinstated at all.
Emeritus counters that Emme is its sister company with the same Board of Directors
and officers, thus Emeritus and Emme are in effect one and the same corporation.
Considering Emeritus’ undisputed claim that Emeritus and Emme are one and the
same, there is no basis in Janrie’s allegation that he was not reinstated. Besides,
Janrie assails the corporate personalities of Emeritus and Emme only in his Comment
filed before this Court. Further, Janrie did not appeal the LA’s reinstatement order.
Contrary to the CA’s ruling, there is nothing showing any strained relations between
the parties to warrant the award of separation pay. There is neither allegation nor
proof that such animosity existed between petitioner and respondent.
Considering that (1) Emeritus reinstated Janrie, and (2) there is no ground to justify
the grant of separation pay, the CA erred in ordering the payment than reinstatement.
DISPOSITIVE LA decision REINSTATED