G.R. No. 211312 - PEOPLE'S SECURITY, INC. AND NESTOR RACHO, VS. JULIUS S. FLORES AND ESTEBAN S. TAPIRU.RESOLUTION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, PSI recalled its security guards assigned to PLDT including the respondents. [4] On October 8, 2001, the respondents, together with several other security guards employed by PSI, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against PLDT and PSI, claiming that they are PLDT employees. The case was raffled to Labor Arbiter (LA) Felipe Pati (LA Pati) for resolution. [5] Thereafter, PSI assigned the respondents to the facilities of its other clients such as the warehouse of a certain Marivic Yulo in Sta. Ana, Manila and Trinity College's Elementary Department in Quezon City. [6] On October 22, 2002, LA Pati rendered a Decision declaring that the respondents and the other complainants therein were employees of PLDT and are, thus, entitled to be reinstated to their former assignments. Consequently, however, LA Pati's decision was set aside by the NLRC, which ruled that the complainants therein are not employees of PLDT. The NLRC's disposition was affirmed by theCA and, ultimately, by this Court. [7] Meanwhile, on January 13, 2003, the respondents were relieved from their respective assignments pursuant to Special Order No. 20031010 [8] dated January 10, 2003 issued by Col. Leonardo L. Aquino, the Operations Manager of PSI. [9] Accordingly, Flores and Tapiru, on September 6 and 27, 2005, respectively, filed with the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in Quezon City a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of service incentive leave pay and cash bond, with prayer for separation pay, against PSI and its President Nestor Racho (Racho) (collectively, the petitioners). [10] On January 16, 2006, the petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss [11] the complaints for illegal dismissal on the ground of forum shopping. In their comment, [12] the respondents denied that they are guilty of forum shopping. They pointed out that the illegal dismissal complaint that they previously filed against PLDT and PSI is a separate case since it involves their removal from their respective assignments on account of the termination of the security services agreement between PSI and PLDT. [13] On May 21, 2006, the LA issued an Order, [14] dismissing the respondents' complaints on the ground of forum shopping. However, upon reconsideration, it was subsequently reversed by the NLRC in. its Decision dated March 26, 2008. The case was then remanded to the LA for further proceedings. [15] On October 22, 2008, the LA directed the parties to submit their respective position papers within an unextendible period of 10 days from receipt of the Order. [16] In their position paper, [17] the respondents claimed that, after they were relieved from their assignment in the warehouse in Sta. Ana, Manila on January 13, 2003, they repeatedly reported to PSI's office for possible assignment, but the latter refused to give them any assignment. [18] On the other hand, the petitioners, in their position paper, [19] claimed that the re