triad security vs. ortega.doc

8/14/2019 triad security vs. ortega.doc

1/13

FIRST DIVISION

TRIAD SECURITY & ALLIED SERVICES,INC. and ANTHONY U. QUE,

Petitioners,

- versus -

SILVESTRE ORTEGA, JR., ARIEL ALVARO,

RICHARD SEVILLANO, MARTIN

CALLUENG, and ISAGANI CAPILA,

Respondents.

G.R. No. 160!1

Present:

PANGANIBAN, C.J.

Chairperson,

YNARS-SANTIAGO,

A!STRIA-"ARTIN#,

CA$$%O, SR., and

C&ICO-NA#ARIO,JJ.

Pro'()*ated:

Fe+r(ar , //

0- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -0

D C I S I O N

C&ICO-NA#ARIO,J.:


2/13

This petition see1s to set aside the De2ision dated 34 %() //3 o5 the Co(rt o5 Appea)s in CA-G.R. SP No.66/7 entit)ed, 8Triad Se2(rit 9 A))ied Seri2es, In2. and Anthon !. ;(e . $a+or Ar+iter d*ar Bisana, et a).< Thedispositie portion o5 the de2ision reads:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE and is DISMISSED. The temporary restrainingorder earier iss!ed on "!ne #$, $%%& is 'IFTED.

The (oo)ing are the pertinent (a*ts+

Petitioner Triad Se2(rit and A))ied Seri2es, In2., =Triad Se2(rit> is a d() )i2ensed se2(rit a*en2 o?ned + 2o-

petitioner Anthon !. ;(e. It ho)ds o55i2e at 6 Car)os Pa)an2a St., ;(iapo, "ani)a. On the other hand, respondentsSi)estre Orte*a, %r., Arie) A)aro, Ri2hard Sei))ano, "artin Ca))(en*, and Isa*ani Capi)a ?ere 5or'er) e'p)oed +

petitioner Triad Se2(rit as se2(rit *(ards. On 7 "ar2h 4@@@, respondents 5i)ed a 2o'p)aint a*ainst petitioners and a2ertain Ret. BGen. %aier D. Car+one)) 5or (nderpa'entnonpa'ent o5 sa)aries, oerti'e pa, pre'i(' pa 5or

ho)ida and rest da, seri2e in2entie )eae pa, ho)ida pa, and attornes 5ees. The 2o'p)aint ?as a'ended on /Apri) 4@@@ to in2)(de the 2har*es o5 i))e*a) dis'issa), i))e*a) ded(2tions, (nderpa'entnonpa'ent o5 a))o?an2e,

separation pa, and 2)ai's 5or 43 th'onth pa, 'ora) and e0e'p)ar da'a*es as ?e)) as ni*ht shi5t di55erentia)..A22ordin* to respondents, d(rin* the ti'e that the ?ere in the e'p)o o5 petitioners, the ?ere re2eiin*

2o'pensation ?hi2h ?as +e)o? the 'ini'(' ?a*e 5i0ed + )a?. The ?ere a)so 'ade to render seri2es eerda 5or4 ho(rs +(t ?ere not paid the re(isite oerti'e pa, ni*htshi5t di55erentia), and ho)ida pa. Respondents )i1e?ise)a'ented the 5a2t that petitioners 5ai)ed to proide the' ?ith ?ee1) rest period, seri2e in2entie )eae pa, and 43 th

'onth pa. As a res()t o5 these per2eied (n5airness, respondents 5i)ed a 2o'p)aint +e5ore the $a+or Standards

n5or2e'ent Diision o5 the Depart'ent o5 $a+or on %an(ar 4@@@. !pon )earnin* o5 the 2o'p)aint, respondentsseri2es ?ere ter'inated ?itho(t the +ene5it o5 noti2e and hearin*.For their part, petitioners denied respondents 2)ai'o5 i))e*a) dis'issa). Petitioners e0p)ained that 'ana*e'ent po)i2ies di2tate that the se2(rit *(ards +e rotated todi55erent assi*n'ents to aoid 5raterniation and that the +e re(ired to ta1e re5resher 2o(rses at their head(arters.

Respondents a))e*ed) re5(sed to 2o'p) ?ith these po)i2ies and instead ?ent on )eae or si'p) re5(sed to report attheir head(arters. As 5or respondents 'one 2)ai's, petitioners insisted that respondents ?or1ed 5or on) ei*ht ho(rsa da, si0 das a ?ee1 and that the re2eied their pre'i(' pas 5or seri2es rendered d(rin* ho)idas and rest da.The seri2e in2entie )eae o5 respondents ?as a))e*ed) 'ade paa+)e as soon as respondents app)ied 5or said +ene5it..

In his de2ision dated E Fe+r(ar ///, $a+or Ar+iter %ose G. de Vera 5o(nd in 5aor o5 respondents. The dispositieportion o5 his de2ision states:

&RFOR, a)) the 5ore*oin* pre'ises 2onsidered (d*'ent is here+ rendered orderin* the respondentsto reinstate the 2o'p)ainants =respondents herein> to their 5or'er o+s as se2(rit *(ards, and to pa oint) andso)idari) 2o'p)ainants +a21?a*es ?hi2h as o5 Fe+r(ar H, /// a)read a'o(nt to PH63,33.47, and to s(2h 5(rther

+a21?a*es as the a22r(e (nti) reinstate'ent order is 2o'p)ied ?ith + the respondents =petitioners herein> F(rther,

respondents are ordered to pa oint) and so)idari) separation pa 2o'p(ted at the a**re*ate s(' o5 P3,@6.7 inthe eent reinstate'ent is no )on*er 5easi+)e F(rther'ore, respondents are ordered to pa oint) and so)idari)2o'p)ainants 'one 2)ai's in the a**re*ate s(' o5 P@7, 447.3/.And 5ina)), respondents are ordered to paattornes 5ees e(ia)ent to ten per2ent =4/> o5 the (d*'ent a?ard.

As petitioners 5ai)ed to seasona+) 5i)e an appea) ?ith the Nationa) $a+or Re)ations Co''ission, the de2ision o5the )a+or ar+iter +e2a'e 5ina) and e0e2(tor pro'ptin* respondents to 5i)e a 'otion 5or the iss(an2e o5 ?rit o5

e0e2(tion on 3 %(ne ///. The ?rit o5 e0e2(tion ?as therea5ter iss(ed on 7 A(*(st ///.

On 4E Septe'+er ///, petitioners 5i)ed a 'otion to re2o'p(te 'one 2)ai's as de2reed ar*(in* therein thatrespondents 'one 2)ai's as 2ontained in the E Fe+r(ar /// de2ision ?ere +ase)ess and that their 5or'er 2o(nse)

?as not 5(rnished a 2op o5 the 2o'p(tation nor ?as he a))o?ed to s(+'it 2o''ents thereon.


3/13

P(rs(ant to the ?rit o5 e0e2(tion, petitioner Triad Se2(rits 5(nds ?ith its 2)ients Re'a) nterprises and Don

Pedro A(2arera a'o(ntin* to one 'i))ion t?o h(ndred t?ent-5o(r tho(sand seen h(ndred si0t-t?o pesos and 5ort2entaos =P4,H,6.H/> ?ere *arnished.

On 3 O2to+er ///, petitioners 5i)ed a 'otion to )i5t noti2es o5 *arnish'ent

In the order dated 4H Noe'+er ///, the )a+or ar+iter denied, 5or )a21 o5 'erit, petitioners 'otion to

re2o'p(te respondents 'one 2)ai's as ?e)) as their 'otion to )i5t noti2es o5 *arnish'ent. In the sa'e order, the*arnished re2eia+)es ?ere ordered re)eased to the N$RC 2ashier 5or proper disposition to respondents.

On 3 Noe'+er ///, respondents 5i)ed a 'otion see1in* the re)ease o5 the 5(nds then in the 2(stod o5 theN$RC 2ashier.

On 43 De2e'+er ///, petitioners 5i)ed an appea) +e5ore the N$RC assai)in* the denia) o5 their 'otion tore2o'p(te 'one 2)ai's and the )a+or ar+iters order re)easin* the *arnished 5(nds to respondents. This appea) ?as

dis'issed + the N$RCs 5irst diision in its order pro'()*ated on @ "a //4.

Si'i)ar) i))-5ated ?ere petitioners petition 5or in(n2tion ?hi2h ?as dis'issed + the N$RC in its reso)(tion o5 "a //4 and their 'otion 5or re2onsideration o5 said reso)(tion ?hi2h ?as denied 5or (tter )a21 o5 'erit on HSepte'+er //4.

Fo))o?in* petitioners set-+a21s +e5ore the N$RC, the )a+or ar+iter iss(ed the order dated 34 A(*(st //4de2reein* the re)ease o5 the 5(nds in the possession o5 the N$RC 2ashier to respondents.

On 4 O2to+er //, the )a+or ar+iter iss(ed an a)ias ?rit o5 e0e2(tion 2o''andin* the sheri55 to 2o))e2t 5ro'petitioners the a'o(nt o5 si0 h(ndred three tho(sand seen h(ndred ninet-5o(r and seent-seen 2entaos=P/3,[email protected]> representin* the (nsatis5ied +a)an2e o5 the (d*'ent a?ard 2ontained in the E Fe+r(ar /// de2ision.

A2tin* on respondents 'otion dated 47 O2to+er //, the )a+or ar+iter iss(ed the order dated @ De2e'+er //

dire2tin* the 2ashier o5 Don Pedro A(2arera to re)ease to the N$RC 2ashier the *arnished 5(nds tota)in* P/3,[email protected].

The 5(nds ?ere eent(a)) ordered re)eased to respondents p(rs(ant to the )a+or ar+iters order o5 46 De2e'+er //.

On 3/ Septe'+er //, the Co'p(tation and 0a'ination !nit o5 the N$RC 2a'e (p ?ith a 2o'p(tation o5'onetar a?ard ?here it appears that petitioners ?ere )ia+)e to respondents 5or the a'o(nt o5 P,/@6,47.representin* the )atters +a21?a*es and separation pa.


4/13

On 3/ %an(ar //3, petitioners 5i)ed their 2o''ent on the 2o'p(tation prepared + the Co'p(tation and

0a'ination !nit. Petitioners essentia)) opposed the 2o'p(tation +ased on the 5o))o?in* *ro(nds:

=a> the +a)an2e o5 the (nsatis5ied a?ard is on) Php /3,[email protected] and not Php ,/@6,47.appearin* on the 2o'p(tationJ

=+> the +asis 5or 2o'p(tin* the ?a*e di55erentia) is erroneo(s.

On the +asis o5 the ne? 2o'p(tation, respondents 5i)ed a 'otion 5or the iss(an2e o5 nda)ias ?rit o5 e0e2(tion.This 'otion ?as predi2ta+) opposed + petitioners.

Despite petitioners protest, the )a+or ar+iter iss(ed the 3 Apri) //3 order statin* as 5o))o?s:

The re2ords o5 the 2ase reea) that the de2ision ordered the respondents to reinstate the

2o'p)ainants to their 5or'er o+ as se2(rit *(ards and de2reed that respondents sha)) pa to the2o'p)ainants 5(rther +a21?a*es as the a22r(e (nti) the order o5 reinstate'ent is 2o'p)ied ?ith.

The order o5 reinstate'ent is se)5-e0e2(tin* and sho()d +e 2o'p)ied ?ith + the

respondents (pon re2eipt o5 the de2ision either + paro)) or phsi2a) reinstate'ent. =PioneerTe0t(riin* Corporation s. N$RC, E/ SCRA E/, in re)ation to Arti2)e 3 o5 the $a+or Code, as

a'ended>.

The respondents 5ai)ed to 2o'p) ?ith the order o5 reinstate'ent, hen2e, 2o'p)ainants+a21?a*es a22r(ed.

As a 'atter o5 pro2ed(re, this O55i2e ordered the Co'p(tation and 0a'ination !nit to2o'p(te 2o'p)ainants a22r(ed +a21?a*es.

On Septe'+er 3/, //, the Co'p(tation and 0a'ination !nit 2a'e (p ?ith the tota)a'o(nt o5 TO "I$$ION NINTY SVN T&O!SAND ON &!NDRD FIFTY TO and4// =P,/@6,47.> PSOS.

The respondents 5i)ed their 2o''ent on the 2o'p(tation and their opposition to2o'p)ainants 'otion 5or e0e2(tion.

e 2onsidered and st(died respondents ar*('ents in their 2o''ent and opposition and

e 5o(nd the' inade(ate to oer2o'e the pres('ption o5 2orre2tness and re*()arit o5 the2o'p(tationJ hen2e, the sa'e is here+ approed.

F(rther, the ar*('ent re*ardin* the s(pposed pres2ri+ed period 2oerin* the 'onth

Fe+r(ar K / Apri) 4@@ appears in2onse(entia) in ie? o5 a 'ani5estation d(rin* 2on5eren2e that=2o'p)ainants are> ?i))in* to ad'it the sa'e and ded(2t the' 5ro' ?hateer a'o(nt is sti)) d(e

the'.

&RFOR, in ie? o5 the 5ore*oin*, 2o'p)ainants 'otion 5or the e0e2(tion o5 theira22r(ed +a21?a*es a'o(ntin* to TO "I$$ION NINTY SVN T&O!SAND ON

&!NDRD FIFTY TO and 4// =P, /@6,47.> PSOS as 2o'p(ted + the Co'p(tationand 0a'ination !nit o5 the N$RC is here+ *ranted )ess the a'o(nt o5 'ore or )ess P6,E/7.//

2oerin* the ?a*e di55erentia) 5or the period Fe+r(ar K / Apri) 4@@.


5/13

$et an A)ias rit o5 0e2(tion 5or the en5or2e'ent o5 the P,/@6,47. )ess the a+oe-'entioned a'o(nt, as 2o'p)ainants a22r(ed +a21?a*es, +e a22ordin*) iss(ed.

Forth?ith, a nda)ias ?rit o5 e0e2(tion dated 4H "a //3 ?as iss(ed + the )a+or ar+iter 5or the satis5a2tion o5

the a'o(nt o5 P,/H,3H6. 8representin* =respondents> (npaid a22r(ed +a21?a*es as 2o'p(ted + the Co'p(tationand 0a'ination !nit 000, in2)(din* attornes 5ees, p)(s e0e2(tion 5ee. An order o5 e0e2(tionJ

0 0 0 0

In a)) the a+oe instan2es ?here the (d*'ent or 5ina) order is not appea)a+)e, the a**rieedpart 'a 5i)e an appropriate spe2ia) 2ii) a2tion (nder R()e 7.

Mo"#o$#", R%# III, S#'()on * o+ (# R%#- o+ P"o'#d%"# o+ (# NLRC #/"#-- /"o-'")#- (# +))n2 o+ a

/#()()on +o" certiorari3


7/13

SCTION H. PRO&IBITD P$ADINGS 9 "OTIONS. The 5o))o?in* p)eadin*s,'otions or petitions sha)) not +e a))o?ed in the 2ases 2oered + these R()es:

0 0 0 0

2> Petition 5or Certiorari, "anda'(s or Prohi+ition.

T#"#+o"#, )na-4%' a- (# NLRC ad no a%(o")( (o )--%# (# 5")( o+ certiorari, "#'o%"-# (o (# Co%"( o+

A//#a- 5a- on /"o/#".

In addition, petitioners 'aintain that the do2trine o5 e0ha(stion o5 ad'inistratie re'edies is not a+so)(te as it

a22epts o5 2ertain e02eptions s(2h as ?hen an appea) ?o()d not +e an ade(ate re'ed there +ein* an order ore0e2(tion a)read iss(ed and the i'p)e'entation o5 said ?rit )oo'ed as a *reat pro+a+i)it.

e do not a*ree.

I( )- a a-)' (#n#( o+ /"o'#d%"a "%#- (a( +o" a -/#')a ')$) a'()on +o" a /#()()on +o" certiorari(o /"o-/#",(# +oo5)n2 "#%)-)(#- 4%-( 'on'%"7 819 (# 5")( )- d)"#'(#d a2a)n-( a (")%na, a oa"d o" an o++)'#"

##"')-)n2 :%d)')a o" %a-);:%d)')a +%n'()on-< 8=9 -%' (")%na, oa"d o" o++)'#" a- a'(#d 5)(o%( o" )n

#'#-- o+ :%")-d)'()on, o" 5)( 2"a$# a%-# o+ d)-'"#()on a4o%n()n2 (o a'> o" #'#-- o+ :%")-d)'()on< and

8?9 (#"# )- no a//#a o" an /a)n, -/##d and ad#%a(# "#4#d )n (# o"d)na" 'o%"-# o+ a5.

In this 2ase, petitioners insist that the N$RC is +ere5t o5 a(thorit to r()e on a 'atter ino)in* *rae a+(se o5

dis2retion that 'a +e 2o''itted + a )a+or ar+iter. S(2h 2on2)(sion, ho?eer, pro2eeds 5ro' a )i'ited (nderstandin*o5 the appe))ate (risdi2tion o5 the N$RC (nder Arti2)e 3 o5 the $a+or Code ?hi2h states:

ART. 3.APPEAL

De2isions, a?ards, or orders o5 the $a+or Ar+iter are 5ina) and e0e2(tor (n)ess appea)ed to the Co''ission +

an or +oth parties ?ithin ten =4/> 2a)endar das 5ro' re2eipt o5 s(2h de2isions, a?ards, or orders. S(2h appea) 'a +eentertained on) on an o5 the 5o))o?in* *ro(nds:

=a> I5 there is pri'a 5a2ie eiden2e o5 a+(se o5 dis2retion on the part o5 the $a+or

Ar+iter.


8/13

In the 2ase o5Air ServicesCooperative v. Court of Appeals,?e had the o22asion to e0p)ain the s2ope o5 saidarti2)e o5 the $a+or Code to 'ean K

0 0 0 A)so, ?hi)e the tit)e o5 Arti2)e 3 see's to proide on) 5or the re'ed o5 appea) as that ter' is (nderstood inpro2ed(ra) )a? and as distin*(ished 5ro' the o55i2e o5 certiorari, nonethe)ess, a 2)oser readin* thereo5 reea)s that it is

not as )i'ited as (nderstood + the petitioners 0 0 0.

0 0 0 0

A+(se o5 dis2retion is ad'itted) ?ithin the a'+it o5 certiorariand its *rant thereo5 to theN$RC indi2ates the )a?'a1ers intention to +roaden the 'eanin* o5 appea) as that ter' is (sed inthe Code 0 0 0.

$i1e?ise, in the sa'e 2ase, this Co(rt (oted ?ith approa) the 5o))o?in* o+seration o5 the Co(rt o5 Appea)s:

e do not see ho? appea) ?o()d hae +een inade(ate or ine55e2t(a) (nder the

pre'ises. On the other hand, +ein* the ad'inistratie a*en2 espe2ia)) tas1ed ?ith the reie? o5)a+or 2ases, Mthe N$RC is in a 5ar +etter position to deter'ine ?hether petitioners *ro(nds 5or

certiorariare 'eritorio(s. Neither is there an 2a(se 5or ?orr that appea) to the Co''ission?o()d not +e speed as the $a+or Code proides that the Co''ission sha)) de2ide 2ases +e5ore it,

?ithin t?ent =/> 2a)endar das 5ro' re2eipt o5 the Ans?er o5 Appe))ee 0 0 0.

Gien the 5ore*oin*, ?e ho)d that the Co(rt o5 Appea)s 2orre2t) dis'issed the petition 5or certiorari+ro(*ht+e5ore it. Not?ithstandin* this pro2ed(ra) de5e2t 2o''itted + petitioners, in the interest o5 s(+stantia) (sti2e, ?esha)) pro2eed to reso)e the other iss(es presented + petitioners.

Petitioners insist that their 'onetar o+)i*ation, as 2ontained in the E Fe+r(ar /// de2ision o5 the )a+orar+iter, had a)read +een 5()) satis5ied. The posit the ar*('ent that ?ith respondents re2eipt o5 their separation pa,

the had opted not to see1 reinstate'ent to their 5or'er o+s and e)e2ted instead to seer their e'p)o'ent ?ithpetitioner Triad Se2(rit. In 5a2t, a22ordin* to petitioners, respondents had a)read 5o(nd ne? e'p)o'ents and toa?ard the' 5(rther +a21?a*es ?o()d +e tanta'o(nt to (n(st enri2h'ent. Th(s, petitioners 'aintain that there is no'ore +asis to ho)d the' )ia+)e 5or the a22r(ed +a21?a*es stated in the 3/ Septe'+er // 2o'p(tation.

A*ain, petitioners ar*('ent is (ntena+)e.

Arti2)e 6@ o5 the $a+or Code, as a'ended, states:

ART. 6@. SECURITY OF TENURE


9/13

In 2ases o5 re*()ar e'p)o'ent the e'p)oer sha)) not ter'inate the seri2es o5 an e'p)oee e02ept 5or a (st2a(se or ?hen a(thoried + this Tit)e. An e'p)oee ?ho is (n(st) dis'issed 5ro' ?or1 sha)) +e entit)ed toreinstate'ent ?itho(t )oss o5 seniorit ri*hts and other prii)e*es and to his 5()) +a21?a*es, in2)(sie o5 a))o?an2es,and to his other +ene5its or their 'onetar e(ia)ent 2o'p(ted 5ro' the ti'e his 2o'pensation ?as ?ithhe)d 5ro' hi'

(p to the ti'e o5 his a2t(a) reinstate'ent.

As the )a? no? stands, an i))e*a)) dis'issed e'p)oee is entit)ed to t?o re)ie5s, na'e): +a21?a*es andreinstate'ent. These are separate and distin2t 5ro' ea2h other. &o?eer, separation pa is *ranted ?here

reinstate'ent is no )on*er 5easi+)e +e2a(se o5 strained re)ations +et?een the e'p)oee and the e'p)oer. In e55e2t, ani))e*a)) dis'issed e'p)oee is entit)ed to either reinstate'ent, i5 ia+)e, or separation pa i5 reinstate'ent is no )on*er

ia+)e an+a21?a*es.

Ba21?a*es and separation pa are, there5ore, distin2t re)ie5s *ranted to one ?ho ?as i))e*a)) dis'issed 5ro'e'p)o'ent. The a?ard o5 one does not pre2)(de that o5 the other as this 2o(rt had, in proper 2ases, ordered the

pa'ent o5 +oth.

In this 2ase, the )a+or ar+iter ordered the reinstate'ent o5 respondents and the pa'ent o5 their +a21?a*es (nti)

their a2t(a) reinstate'ent anin 2ase reinstate'ent is no )on*er ia+)e, the pa'ent o5 separation pa. !nder Arti2)e3 o5 the $a+or Code, 8the de2ision o5 the $a+or Ar+iter reinstatin* a dis'issed or separated e'p)oee, inso5ar as the

reinstate'ent aspe2t is 2on2erned, sha)) +e i''ediate) e0e2(tor, een pendin* appea).< The sa'e proision o5 the)a? *ies the e'p)oer the option o5 either ad'ittin* the e'p)oee +a21 to ?or1 (nder the sa'e ter's and 2onditions

preai)in* +e5ore his dis'issa) or separation 5ro' e'p)o'ent or the e'p)oer 'a 2hoose to 'ere) reinstate thee'p)oee to the paro)). It +ears e'phasiin* that the )a? 'andates the pro'pt reinstate'ent o5 the dis'issed orseparated e'p)oee. This, the petitioners 5ai)ed to heed. The are no? +e5ore this Co(rt insistin* that the hae 5())disposed o5 their )e*a) o+)i*ation to respondents ?hen the paid the )atters separation pa. e do not a*ree.

It sho()d +e pointed o(t that an order o5 reinstate'ent + the )a+or ar+iter is not the sa'e as a2t(a)

reinstate'ent o5 a dis'issed or separated e'p)oee. Th(s, (nti) the e'p)oer 2ontin(o(s) 5ai)s to a2t(a)) i'p)e'entthe reinstate'ent aspe2t o5 the de2ision o5 the )a+or ar+iter, their o+)i*ation to respondents, inso5ar as a22r(ed

+a21?a*es and other +ene5its are 2on2erned, 2ontin(es to a22('()ate. It is on) ?hen the i))e*a)) dis'issed e'p)oeere2eies the separation pa that it 2o()d +e 2)ai'ed ?ith 2ertaint that the e'p)oer-e'p)oee re)ationship has 5or'a))

2eased there+ pre2)(din* the possi+i)it o5 reinstate'ent. In the 'eanti'e, the i))e*a)) dis'issed e'p)oeesentit)e'ent to +a21?a*es, 43th'onth pa, and other +ene5its s(+sists. !nti) the pa'ent o5 separation pa is 2arriedo(t, the e'p)oer sho()d not +e a))o?ed to re'ain (np(nished 5or the de)a, i5 not o(tri*ht re5(sa), to i''ediate)e0e2(te the reinstate'ent aspe2t o5 the )a+or ar+iters de2ision.

The re2ords o5 this 2ase are +ere5t o5 an indi2ation that respondents ?ere a2t(a)) reinstated to their preio(s

o+s or to the 2o'pan paro)). Instead, the ?ere *ien, a)+eit ?ith '(2h resistan2e 5ro' petitioners, the 5()) a'o(nto5 the 'one (d*'ent stated in the E Fe+r(ar /// de2ision o5 the )a+or ar+iter, in2)(sie o5 separation pa, 'ore


10/13

than t?o ears a5ter the )a+or ar+iter had iss(ed his de2ision on the i))e*a) dis'issa) 2ase 5i)ed + respondents. As the

)a? 2)ear) re(ires petitioners to pa respondents +a21?a*es untila2t(a) reinstate'ent, ?e reso)e that petitioners aresti)) )ia+)e to respondents 5or a22r(ed +a21?a*es and other +ene5its 5ro' 7 Fe+r(ar /// (nti) 4 De2e'+er //,

the da +e5ore the )a+or ar+iter ordered the re)ease to respondents o5 P/3,[email protected] representin* the 5()) satis5a2tion o5E Fe+r(ar /// (d*'ent, in2)(din* separation pa.

Nor 2an ?e *ie 2reden2e to petitioners 2)ai' that the 2o()d not reinstate respondents as the )atter had

a)read 5o(nd o+s e)se?here. It is ?orth to note here that respondents ?ere 'ini'(' ?a*e earners ?ho ?ere )e5t?ith no 2hoi2e a5ter the ?ere i))e*a)) dis'issed 5ro' their e'p)o'ent +(t to see1 ne? e'p)o'ent in order to earn

a de2ent )iin*. S(re), ?e 2o()d not 5a()t the' 5or their perseeran2e in )oo1in* 5or and eent(a)) se2(rin* ne?e'p)o'ent opport(nities instead o5 re'ainin* id)e and a?aitin* the o(t2o'e o5 this 2ase.

e a*ree, ho?eer, ?ith petitioners that the a'o(nt o5 +asi2 sa)ar (sed + the Co'p(tation and0a'ination !nit o5 the N$RC ?as erroneo(s. In said 2o'p(tation, the a'o(nt o5 respondents +asi2 sa)ar 5ro' 7

Fe+r(ar 4@@@ (nti) 3/ Septe'+er // =the date o5 the 2o'p(tation> ?as pe**ed at P7/.//. &o?eer, the preai)in*dai) 'ini'(' ?a*e on 7 Fe+r(ar /// ?as on) P3.7/ and it ?as on) on 4 Noe'+er /// ?hen the rate ?as

in2reased to P7/.//. C)ear), the Co'p(tation and 0a'ination !nit o5 the N$RC ?as 'ista1en in its 2a)2()ation.e, there5ore, ho)d that 5ro' 7 Fe+r(ar (p to 34 O2to+er ///, petitioners are )ia+)e 5or a22r(ed +a21?a*es at the

rate o5 P3.7/ per da and 5ro' 4 Noe'+er /// (nti) 4 De2e'+er //, the sho()d +e he)d a22o(nta+)e 5ora22r(ed +a21?a*es o5 P7/.// per da. In addition, the sho()d pa respondents an additiona) 2ost o5 )iin*

a))o?an2e ?hi2h 'a hae +een pres2ri+ed ?ithin the period 7 Fe+r(ar /// (nti) 4 De2e'+er // and other+ene5its to ?hi2h respondents are entit)ed to d(rin* said span o5 ti'e.

&RFOR, pre'ises 2onsidered, this Co(rt AFFIR"S the De2ision o5 the Co(rt o5 Appea)s dated 34%() //3 and the Order dated 3 Apri) //3 o5 the $a+or Ar+iter de2)arin* petitioners )ia+)e 5or additiona) a22r(ed

+a21?a*es. The a'o(nt o5 'one 2)ai's d(e the respondents is, ho?eer, "ODIFID. $et the re2ords o5 this 2ase +e

re'anded to the Co'p(tation and 0a'ination !nit o5 the N$RC 5or proper 2o'p(tation o5 s(+e2t 'one 2)ai's asa+oe-dis2(ssed. Costs a*ainst petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

MINITA V. CHICO;NA@ARIO

Asso2iate %(sti2e

CONC!R:


11/13

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIAN

Chie5 %(sti2e

Chairperson

CONSUELO YNARES;SANTIAGO MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA;MARTINE@

Asso2iate %(sti2e Asso2iate %(sti2e

ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.

Asso2iate %(sti2e

C R T I F I C A T I O N

P(rs(ant to Arti2)e VIII, Se2tion 43 o5 the Constit(tion, it is here+ 2erti5ied that the 2on2)(sions in the a+oeDe2ision ?ere rea2hed in 2ons()tation +e5ore the 2ase ?as assi*ned to the ?riter o5 the opinion o5 the Co(rts Diision.

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIAN

Chie5 %(sti2e


12/13

Penned + Asso2iate %(sti2e Ro+erto A. Barrios ?ith Asso2iate %(sti2es %ose5ina G(eara-Sa)on*a and Art(roD. Brion, 2on2(rrin*.

Rollo!p. 74.

Re2ords, Vo). I, pp. -3J On) the Triad Se2(rit 9 A))ied Seri2es, In2. and Anthon !. ;(e 5i)ed the presentpetition 5or reie?.

Id., pp. 6-E.

Id., p. E6.

Id., pp. @4-@.

Rollo!pp. 6-E.

Re2ords, Vo). I, pp. 46H-46.

Rollo!pp. @-64.

Re2ords, Vo). I, pp. 4@@-//.

Id., pp. 4@H-4@7.

Id., pp. 4@-4@3.

Id., pp. 33-3E.

Id., pp. H4-H.

Id., pp. 7-E.

Id., pp. 373-37H.

Id., pp. 3@3-3@7.

Id., pp. HH7-HH@.

Id., pp. 37-363.

Rollo!pp. 6-67.

Re2ords, Vo). I, pp. 7/E-7/@.

Id., pp. H@@-7//.


13/13

Rollo, p. EH.

Id., p. .

Dated 4E Fe+r(ar //3J Id., pp. @@-4/4.

Dated / Apri) //3J Id., pp. 4/-44H.

Id., pp. 3/@-344.

Id., pp. 447-44.

CA rollo, pp. -3.

Id., pp. 44H-447.

Rollo, p. H@.

Id., p. 37@, 2itin* O"ico #inin$ % Inustrial Corporation v. &alle'os, G.R. No. $-3E@6H, 7 "ar2h 4@67, 3

SCRA E7, 3/4.

Cuison v. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 4E7H/, 47 Apri) 4@@E, E@ SCRA 47@, 464.

37H Phi). @/7 =4@@E>.

Air Services Cooperative v. Court of Appeals!s(pra at @47.

Id. at @4.

Torillo v. Leo$aro! Jr.! et al.! 6H Phi). 67E, 67 =4@@4>.

Li" v. National La(or Relations Co""ission!G.R. Nos. 6@@/6 and 6@@67, 4 "ar2h 4@E@, 464 SCRA 3E,33.

Air Services Cooperative v. Court of Appeals! s(pranote 3H.

Air Services Cooperative v. Court of Appeals! s(pra.

a*e Order No. 6.

a*e Order No. E.

triad security vs. ortega.doc

Documents

Transcript of triad security vs. ortega.doc