G.R. No. 187188 - SALVADOR O. MOJAR, EDGAR B. BEGONIA, HEIRS OF THE LATE JOSE M. CORTEZ, RESTITUTO GADDI, VIRGILIO M. MONANA, FREDDIE RANCES, AND EDSON D. TOMAS, VS. AGRO COMMERCIAL SECURITY SERVICE AGENCY, INC., ET AL.,[1].D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents to reinstate all the complainants to their former assignment in Pangasinan with full backwages and if reinstatement is no longer possible, to pay separation pay of one month for every year of service each of the seven complainant security guards. ( A detailed computation of the judgment award is attached as Annex A. ) [4] (Italicized in the original) On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the LAs ruling, with the modification that the Complaint against the Bank of Commerce was dismissed. [5] The dispositive portion provides: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of Agro Commercial Security Service Agency, Inc. is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Appeal of Bank of Commerce is GRANTED for being impressed with merit. Accordingly, judgment is hereby rendered MODIFYING the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated May 22, 2006 by DISMISSING the complaint against Bank of Commerce-Dagupan. All other dispositions of the Labor Arbiter not so modified, STAYS. [6] On 23 January 2008, respondent filed a Motion for Extension to file a Petition for Certiorari before the CA. In a Resolution dated 20 February 2008, the latter granted the Motion for Extension, allowing respondent until 10 February 2008 within which to file its Petition. On 9 February 2008, respondent filed its Petition for Certiorari before the appellate court. On 30 June 2008, the CA issued a Resolution noting that no comment on the Petition had been filed, and stating that the case was now deemed submitted for resolution. On 21 July 2008, the CA rendered its Decision. Finding merit in the Petition, it found the Orders transferring petitioners to Manila to be a valid exercise of management prerogative. The records were bereft of any showing that the subject transfer involved a diminution of rank or salaries. Further, there was no showing of bad faith or ill motive on the part of the employer. Thus, petitioners refusal to comply with the transfer orders constituted willful disobedience of a lawful order of an employer and abandonment, which were just causes for termination under the Labor Code. However, respondent failed to observe the due process requirements in terminating them. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision provides: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the NLRC dated July 31, 2007 and October 31, 2007[,] respectively, in NLRC NCR CA No. 046036-05 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE . The complaints of private respondents for illegal dismissal are hereby DISMISSED . However, petitioner is ordered to pay private respondents the sum of P10,000.00 each for having violated the latters right to statutory due process. [7] On 1 August 2008, petitioner Mojar filed a Manifestation [8] before the CA, stating that he and the other petitioners had not been served a copy of the CA Petition. He also said that they were not aware whether their counsel bef