Mojar vs. Agro Commercial Security Service Agency, Inc.

A transfer or reassignment of an employee is a valid exercise of management prerogative provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and other privileges, and the transfer is not motivated by discrimination or bad faith. Moreover, service of court notices and resolutions on a deceased counsel of record is valid and binding upon the client where the client was negligent in substituting counsel and failed to inform the court of the counsel's death.

Petitioners were employed as security guards by respondent Agro Commercial Security Service Agency, Inc. and assigned to various branches of the Bank of Commerce in Pangasinan, La Union, and Ilocos Sur. In separate Office Orders dated 23 and 24 May 2002, petitioners were relieved from their posts and directed to report to new assignments in Metro Manila effective 3 June 2002. Petitioners failed to report to their new posts. Respondent sent a letter dated 18 June 2002 requiring petitioners to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against them, but the letter went unheeded. Petitioners contended that the reassignment was a scheme to sever the employer-employee relationship and was executed in retaliation for their pending claim for salary differential against the respondent.

• Employment and Reassignment: Petitioners were security guards assigned to Bank of Commerce branches in the Ilocos region. Pursuant to Office Orders dated 23 and 24 May 2002, they were relieved from their posts and transferred to Metro Manila effective 3 June 2002.
• Refusal to Comply: Petitioners did not report to their new assignments. Respondent issued a letter dated 18 June 2002 demanding a written explanation for their absence, which petitioners ignored.
• Illegal Dismissal Complaint: On 15 February 2005, petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging the transfer was a retaliatory scheme to sever employment and was inconvenient and prejudicial due to added expenses for board and lodging.
• Death of Counsel: Petitioners' counsel of record before the NLRC, Atty. Jose C. Espinas, became bedridden in December 2007 and passed away in February 2008. Petitioners failed to substitute their counsel or inform the courts of his death, claiming they could not retrieve their folder from his office.
• CA Proceedings: Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA. The CA served resolutions on Atty. Espinas. No comment was filed, and the case was submitted for resolution. The CA eventually granted the petition and dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint. Petitioners filed a Manifestation alleging lack of notice and subsequently filed a Motion to Annul Proceedings, which the CA denied.

• Procedural Defects in CA Petition: Petitioners argued that the CA should not have taken cognizance of the petition because respondent failed to indicate their actual addresses as required under Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, and failed to attach the required affidavit of service, rendering the petition a mere scrap of paper.
• Deprivation of Due Process: Petitioners contended that respondent purposely omitted their actual addresses to exclude them from the CA proceedings. They further argued that service upon their deceased counsel was invalid and that the CA was grossly ignorant of the law in ignoring the rule on constructive dismissal.
• Constructive Dismissal: Petitioners maintained that they were illegally dismissed, relying on the doctrine that when a security guard's floating status lasts for more than six months, constructive dismissal occurs.

• Finality of the CA Decision: Respondent argued that the CA Decision had already become final and executory because the Motion to Annul Proceedings—an unrecognized procedural remedy—was filed 44 days after service of the CA Decision on petitioners' counsel.
• Validity of Service and Binding Nature of Counsel's Actions: Respondent countered that Atty. Aglipay, who filed the Motion to Annul, had no legal standing due to the lack of substitution of counsel. Thus, petitioners were bound by the actions of their counsel of record, Atty. Espinas, and service upon him was valid.

• Compliance with Rule 46: Whether the CA erred in taking cognizance of the petition despite the alleged absence of petitioners' actual addresses and the lack of an affidavit of service.
• Substitution of Counsel and Due Process: Whether service of court resolutions on a deceased counsel of record is valid and binding, and whether petitioners were deprived of due process.
• Validity of the Transfer: Whether the transfer of security guards to Metro Manila constituted constructive dismissal or illegal dismissal.

• Compliance with Rule 46: Substantial compliance with Section 3, Rule 46 was deemed satisfied, because the petition clearly indicated that the parties could be served through their respective counsels whose addresses were specified. While the lack of an affidavit of service is a fatal defect under Section 13, Rule 13, the CA had sufficient reason to take cognizance of the petition, as service on the counsel of record was subsequently proven valid.
• Substitution of Counsel and Due Process: Service of pleadings and judgments on the counsel of record remains valid despite the counsel's death if the client fails to inform the court and substitute counsel. It is the duty of party-litigants to monitor their case and inform the court of any changes in their representation; their failure to do so constitutes negligence that precludes them from claiming deprivation of due process. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, which was afforded to petitioners but forfeited through their own negligence.
• Validity of the Transfer: The transfer did not constitute constructive dismissal. The "floating status" doctrine is inapplicable because petitioners were not indefinitely without assignment; they were reassigned to new posts but refused to report. A relief and transfer order does not sever employment, and an employer may transfer employees in pursuit of legitimate business interest provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, and the transfer is not motivated by bad faith or discrimination. Added expenses and inconvenience do not invalidate a transfer made in good faith.

• Management Prerogative to Transfer — An employer has the right to transfer or assign employees from one office or area to another in pursuit of legitimate business interest, provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and other privileges, and the transfer is not motivated by discrimination or bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause. Applied to uphold the security guards' reassignment to Metro Manila, as there was no showing of bad faith or diminution of rank and salary.
• Substitution of Counsel upon Death — Where the death of the previous attorney is the cause of substitution, the following requisites must be complied with: (1) filing of a written application for substitution; (2) the client's written consent; (3) the consent of the substituted lawyer if such consent can be obtained; and, in case such written consent cannot be procured, (4) a proof of service of notice of such motion on the attorney to be substituted in the manner required by the Rules; and (5) a verified proof of the death of such attorney (usually a death certificate) must accompany the notice of appearance of the new counsel. Applied to rule that petitioners were negligent in failing to substitute their deceased counsel.
• Floating Status — "Floating status" means an indefinite period of time when an employee does not receive any salary or financial benefit provided by law; it applies when security guards are indefinitely without assignment, not when they are reassigned to new posts but refuse to report. Distinguished from the present case to deny the claim of constructive dismissal.

• "It is not the duty of the courts to inquire, during the progress of a case, whether the law firm or partnership representing one of the litigants continues to exist lawfully, whether the partners are still alive, or whether its associates are still connected with the firm."
• "Litigants who are represented by counsel should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their cases. Relief will not be granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence."
• "Employees have the right to security of tenure, but this does not give them such a vested right to their positions as would deprive the company of its prerogative to change their assignment or transfer them where their services, as security guards, will be most beneficial to the client."

• Cendaña v. Avila, G.R. No. 168350 (2008) — Cited for the mandatory requirement that a petition for certiorari must contain the actual addresses of the parties; failure to comply is ground for dismissal.
• Santos v. Litton Mills Incorporated, G.R. No. 170646 (2011) — Followed to establish that indicating the addresses of counsel for service of process constitutes substantial compliance with Section 3, Rule 46.
• Ferrer v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 155025 (2007) — Followed for the rule that the lack of proof of service (affidavit of service) in a petition for certiorari is a fatal defect.
• Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, 341 Phil. 413 (1997) — Followed for the requisites of a valid substitution of counsel, especially upon the death of the previous attorney.
• Ampo v. Court of Appeals, 517 Phil. 750 (2006) — Followed for the principle that equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights, and that litigants must periodically follow up on their cases.
• Agro Commercial Security Services Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, 256 Phil. 1182 (1989) — Distinguished. Cited by petitioners for the six-month floating status rule, but inapplicable because petitioners were not placed on floating status but were in fact reassigned.
• Megaforce Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Lactao, G.R. No. 160940 (2008) — Followed for the rule that a relief and transfer order does not sever the employment relationship between security guards and their agency.
• Salvaloza v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 182086 (2010) — Followed for the doctrine on management prerogative to transfer employees.

• Section 3, Rule 46, Rules of Court — Requires that a petition for certiorari contain the full names and actual addresses of all petitioners and respondents and be filed together with proof of service; failure to comply is ground for dismissal. Applied to determine substantial compliance by respondent.
• Section 13, Rule 13, Rules of Court — Prescribes the proof of service required if service is made by registered mail (affidavit of the person mailing and the registry receipt). Noted as a requirement that respondent initially failed to comply with.
• Section 2, Rule 13, Rules of Court — Provides that if a party has appeared by counsel, service of pleadings and judgments shall be made upon his counsel. Applied to validate service of court resolutions on petitioners' counsel of record.
• Section 26, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Governs the substitution of counsel. Interpreted in conjunction with jurisprudence to require specific steps when substituting a deceased attorney.

Carpio (Senior Associate Justice, Chairperson), Brion, Perez, and Reyes.