G.R. NO. 160871 - TRIAD SECURITY & ALLIED SERVICES, INC. AND ANTHONY U. QUE, VS. SILVESTRE ORTEGA, JR., ARIEL ALVARO, RICHARD SEVILLANO, MARTIN CALLUENG, AND ISAGANI CAPILA. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE and is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order earlier issued on June 12, 2003 is LIFTED. [2] The following are the pertinent facts: Petitioner Triad Security and Allied Services, Inc., (Triad Security) is a duly licensed security agency owned by co-petitioner Anthony U. Que. It holds office at 672 Carlos Palanca St., Quiapo, Manila. On the other hand, respondents Silvestre Ortega, Jr., Ariel Alvaro, Richard Sevillano, Martin Callueng, and Isagani Capila were formerly employed by petitioner Triad Security as security guards. On 25 March 1999, respondents filed a complaint against petitioners and a certain Ret. B/Gen. Javier D. Carbonell for underpayment/nonpayment of salaries, overtime pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, service incentive leave pay, holiday pay, and attorney's fees. [3] The complaint was amended on 20 April 1999 to include the charges of illegal dismissal, illegal deductions, underpayment/nonpayment of allowance, separation pay, and claims for 13 th month pay, moral and exemplary damages as well as night shift differential. [4] According to respondents, during the time that they were in the employ of petitioners, they were receiving compensation which was below the minimum wage fixed by law. They were also made to render services everyday for 12 hours but were not paid the requisite overtime pay, nightshift differential, and holiday pay. Respondents likewise lamented the fact that petitioners failed to provide them with weekly rest period, service incentive leave pay, and 13 th month pay. As a result of these perceived unfairness, respondents filed a complaint before the Labor Standards Enforcement Division of the Department of Labor on 6 January 1999. [5] Upon learning of the complaint, respondents' services were terminated without the benefit of notice and hearing. For their part, petitioners denied respondents' claim of illegal dismissal. Petitioners explained that management policies dictate that the security guards be rotated to different assignments to avoid fraternization and that they be required to take refresher courses at their headquarters. Respondents allegedly refused to comply with these policies and instead went on leave or simply refused to report at their headquarters. As for respondents' money claims, petitioners insisted that respondents worked for only eight hours a day, six days a week and that they received their premium pays for services rendered during holidays and rest day. The service incentive leave of respondents was allegedly made payable as soon as respondents applied for said benefit. [6] In his decision dated 28 February 2000, Labor Arbiter Jose G. de Vera found in favor of respondents. The dispositive portion of his decision states: WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondents to reinstate the complainants (respondents herein) to their former jobs as security guards, and to pay jointly