G.R. No. 172988 - JOSE P. ARTIFICIO, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RP GUARDIANS SECURITY AGENCY, INC., JUAN VICTOR K. LAURILLA, ALBERTO AGUIRRE, AND ANTONIO A. ANDRES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered declaring respondents guilty of illegal suspension/lay-off and illegal dismissal. Since the complainant does not seek reinstatement, he is entitled to limited backwages and separation pay. Respondent [RP] . Guardian Security Agency, Inc., is hereby ordered to pay complainant as follows: Limited backwages computed from July 29, 2002 up to the date of this Decision in the amount of P217,033.79; In lieu of reinstatement, separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month's salary for every year of service computed from 1986 in the amount of P81,507.60; ECOLA from November 5, 2001 up to July 31, 2002, in the amount of P6,628.50 [;] and Refund of P30.00 monthly contribution to Trust Fund in the amount of P5,970.00; Ten percent (10%) of the total award as attorney's fees in the amount of P31,113.99. All other claims herein sought and prayed for are hereby denied for lack of legal and factual bases. [12] On appeal, the NLRC, in a Decision [13] dated 31 August 2004, set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter. It ruled that the Labor Arbiter erred in considering preventive suspension as a penalty. While it is true that preventive suspension can ripen into constructive dismissal when it goes beyond the 30-day maximum period allowed by law, such is not prevailing in this case since Artificio immediately filed a complaint before the labor tribunal. It added that it was Artificio who terminated his relationship with respondents when he asked for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement although he has not yet been dismissed. The NLRC clarified further that: x x x While it is true that preventive suspension can ripen into a constructive dismissal when such goes beyond the 30 day maximum period allowable by law, such is not prevailing in the case at bar as it was complainant who chose to file a complaint and have due process before the courts of law. It was complainant who terminated the relationship with respondents by asking for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement when the fact of dismissal has not yet happened. From the documents presented, complainant was put on preventive suspension pending investigation of company violations which were supported by documentary evidences on July 29, 2002. He was set to be heard on August 12, 2002 but before the respondents could hear his side, he filed this instant complaint on August 5, 2002, pre-empting the administrative investigation undertaken by respondents. [14] In the end, the NLRC decreed: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered, ordering respondents to reinstate complainant to his former position without loss of seniority rights. All other claims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit. [15] The motion for reconsideration filed by Artificio was denied for lack of merit by the NLRC in a resolution dated 29 October 2004. [16] Artificio next filed a petition for certiora