Suazo vs. Tri Megaforce Security Services Corporation

In labor cases, a labor tribunal's finding of no constructive dismissal, if supported by substantial evidence, cannot be disturbed on Rule 45 review because no grave abuse of discretion can be ascribed; and a lawyer's misquotation or misrepresentation of jurisprudence may warrant a motu proprio administrative disciplinary complaint under Canon VI, Section 2 of the CPRA.

Joel Pazo Suazo was employed by Tri Megaforce Security Services Corporation as a security guard beginning in 2008. Their employer-employee relationship placed any dismissal dispute within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission, and the Court of Appeals. The case also implicated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability because the petition for review cited numerous Court decisions whose accuracy the Supreme Court examined.

Tri Megaforce Security Services Corporation hired Joel Pazo Suazo as a security guard in 2008. Suazo claimed that on February 10, 2022, he was on the last day of his tour of duty at the Edades Tower Garden and Villas in Makati City. Since then, respondent had not given him a new assignment despite his demands. On December 15, 2022, he filed a Complaint for constructive dismissal with claims for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, backwages, overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday and rest day premiums, night shift differential pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and damages and attorney's fees with the NLRC.

Respondent claimed that it did not dismiss Suazo. According to respondent, Suazo last reported for work on February 8, 2022, then informed respondent that he would be renewing his security license. Since then, Suazo neither returned to work nor submitted a renewed license. Respondent also sent him three notices directing him to report to his new assignment, but Suazo never replied and instead filed the Complaint.

The Labor Arbiter, in a Decision dated February 20, 2023, dismissed Suazo's Complaint for constructive dismissal but directed him to report to respondent within 10 days. The LA granted his claims for 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay but denied the other money claims for lack of basis. The LA found that Suazo was not constructively dismissed; rather, despite notices sent by respondent, Suazo failed to report for work. Although the first return-to-work order was sent to the wrong address belonging to another employee, the second and third RTWOs were sent to Suazo's correct address but were not delivered because Suazo had moved out and left no forwarding address with respondent. The LA thus held that it was Suazo's fault that he did not receive the RTWOs, and that there being neither dismissal nor abandonment, Suazo could return to work.

The NLRC affirmed the LA's finding of no constructive dismissal. Notwithstanding the misspelling of the street name in the two later RTWOs, records showed that the delivery personnel of the Philippine Postal Corporation were able to locate the address; however, the RTWOs were not delivered because Suazo had moved out. The NLRC also found that respondent had already paid Suazo's 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay for the years 2019-2021, as shown by bank certifications, and reduced the total monetary award accordingly. The Court of Appeals found the NLRC Decision supported by substantial evidence and held that Suazo could not prove that respondent told him not to report for work after the last day of his tour of duty at Edades Tower; respondent had sent notices ordering him to return to work for his new assignment, which he failed to heed because he did not notify respondent of his new address. The LA, NLRC, and CA uniformly found as fact that respondent repeatedly sent RTWOs to the address Suazo provided, that the later RTWOs were returned unserved because Suazo had moved out without leaving a forwarding address, and that respondent had paid the 2019-2021 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay.

• Invalid Service of RTWOs: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in ruling that the RTWOs were validly served; he cited supposed decisions for the proposition that absent evidence of actual receipt, there is no valid return-to-work order and the employee cannot be faulted for non-compliance.
• No Constructive Dismissal / Floating Status: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in affirming that he was not constructively dismissed; he cited eight decisions to assail the CA's finding that he was not placed on floating status and that respondent presented sufficient evidence to prove no constructive dismissal.
• Reduction of Monetary Awards: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in affirming the reduction of monetary awards due; he cited decisions for the proposition that the employer failed to prove payment of service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay.

• No Dismissal; Failure to Return: Respondent maintained that it did not dismiss Suazo; he last reported for work on February 8, 2022, informed respondent that he would renew his security license, and thereafter neither returned to work nor submitted a renewed license. It also claimed that it sent three notices directing him to report to his new assignment, but Suazo never replied and instead filed the Complaint.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion / Constructive Dismissal: Whether the CA correctly ruled that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in holding that Suazo was not constructively dismissed.
• Counsel's Misquotation of Jurisprudence: Whether the number and frequency of misquoted and misrepresented decisions by Suazo's counsel warrant a motu proprio administrative disciplinary complaint under the CPRA.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion / Constructive Dismissal: No. The CA correctly ruled that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion; the finding of no constructive dismissal was supported by substantial evidence, and constructive dismissal is a question of fact not reviewable under Rule 45 absent exceptions.
• Counsel's Misquotation of Jurisprudence: Yes. The number and frequency of misquoted and misrepresented decisions warranted a motu proprio administrative disciplinary complaint against Atty. Ranion under Canon VI, Section 2 of the CPRA for possible violation of Canon II, Section 8.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion / Constructive Dismissal: Rule 45 review is discretionary; a petition raising purely factual issues must be dismissed because the Court is not authorized to review them. Constructive dismissal is a question of fact, requiring examination and evaluation of evidence, and is generally not reviewable in a Rule 45 petition; no exception applied. In labor cases, the Court reviews the legal correctness of the CA decision, particularly whether the labor tribunals gravely abused their discretion. If the labor tribunals' ruling is based on substantial evidence, there is no grave abuse of discretion. Here, the labor tribunals consistently found that respondent repeatedly sent the RTWOs to the address Suazo provided and that they were returned unserved because Suazo had moved out. The LA correctly held that the unsuccessful delivery of the two most recent RTWOs could not be taken against respondent, as Suazo moved out without leaving a forwarding address; this was supported by Philippine Postal Corporation tracking receipts. The NLRC's reduction of monetary awards was also grounded on substantial evidence because respondent had already paid Suazo's 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay for 2019-2021. The CA correctly held that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies such as the NLRC are accorded respect when supported by substantial evidence. Thus, no grave abuse of discretion was shown.
• Counsel's Misquotation of Jurisprudence: Suazo, through Atty. Ranion, cited what appeared to be 18 Court decisions. The Court analyzed the decisions, citations, and dates and found that they either did not exist, contained G.R. numbers for unrelated cases and erroneous promulgation dates, pertained to cases unrelated to the issues, or contained doctrines that opposed rather than supported Suazo's arguments. For the first argument on RTWO service, the Court found: Benguet Electric Cooperative vs. Fianza was cited with a nonexistent G.R. number and date; the actual case involved demotion, not an RTWO, and ruled for the employer. Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc. involved no notices of reassignment and resolved a weight-requirement termination issue in favor of the employer. Puyat vs. CA had a nonexistent G.R. number. Shimizu Phils. Contractors, Inc. vs. Callanta was cited with the wrong date; the employee there was retrenched, the dismissal was legal, and the employer prevailed. Santos vs. San Miguel Corporation did not involve mailing notices but loss of confidence. For the second argument on no constructive dismissal, the Court found: Pascua vs. Bankwise, Inc. was misidentified; the actual case found no constructive dismissal because the employee resigned. Blue Dairy Corporation vs. NLRC was cited with the wrong date and involved transfer, not floating status. Philippine Industrial Security Agency Corporation vs. Aguinaldo was cited with the wrong date and involved transfer, not floating status. Lim vs. CA was misidentified; the G.R. number referred to Philippine Veterans Bank vs. Estrella and Solid Homes, Inc., a civil case. Burgundy Realty Corporation vs. Reyes had a nonexistent G.R. number and date. Dela Cruz vs. NLRC did not involve payroll authentication but back wages. Santos vs. CA was misidentified; the G.R. number referred to Republic vs. Santos III, a property accretion case. Heirs of Ureta, Sr. vs. Heirs of Ureta was misidentified; the G.R. number referred to Aliling vs. Feliciano, and the actual Ureta case involved deeds of sale. For the third argument on reduction of awards, the Court found: Austria vs. NLRC did not involve proof of payment of service incentive leave and 13th month pay but jurisdiction and illegal dismissal of a pastor. Arriola vs. Pilipino Star Ngayon was misidentified; the G.R. number referred to Garcia vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc., and the actual Arriola case involved prescription and illegal dismissal. San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC and G&M Philippines vs. Esguerra had nonexistent G.R. numbers and dates. Maranaw Hotels and Resort Corporation vs. NLRC had the wrong title and date and involved forum shopping, not proof of payment. The number and frequency of these misquotations and misrepresentations warranted a motu proprio administrative disciplinary complaint against Atty. Ranion under Canon VI, Section 2 of the CPRA for possible violation of Canon II, Section 8. The Court emphasized that its decisions form part of the law of the land and that misrepresenting the law is punishable under the CPRA and violates the Lawyer's Oath; such conduct erodes public faith in the legal profession and required investigation by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

• Constructive Dismissal as a Question of Fact — Constructive dismissal requires examination and evaluation of the evidence on record and is a question of fact; as a rule, it is not reviewable in a Rule 45 petition. The Court applied this rule to Suazo's claim, finding that no exception to the rule was present.
• Substantial Evidence and Grave Abuse of Discretion in Labor Cases — In labor cases, the Court reviews the legal correctness of the CA decision, particularly whether the labor tribunals gravely abused their discretion. If the labor tribunals' ruling is based on substantial evidence, there is no grave abuse of discretion. The NLRC's finding of no constructive dismissal was supported by substantial evidence, so no grave abuse was ascribed to it.
• Respect for Factual Findings of Quasi-Judicial Agencies — Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies such as the NLRC are accorded respect when supported by substantial evidence. The CA correctly deferred to the NLRC's factual findings, and the Supreme Court found no reason to disturb them.
• Return-to-Work Orders and Employee's Duty to Notify Address — The unsuccessful delivery of return-to-work orders cannot be taken against the employer where the employee moved out of the address provided without leaving a forwarding address. Because Suazo moved out and the RTWOs were returned unserved, he could not fault respondent for his non-compliance.
• Lawyer's Duty to Cite Jurisprudence Correctly — Lawyers are duty-bound to correctly cite jurisprudence and avoid misquoting or misrepresenting the Court's decisions. The Court may motu proprio investigate and institute an administrative disciplinary complaint under Canon VI, Section 2 of the CPRA for a possible violation of Canon II, Section 8. Atty. Ranion's 18 misquoted or misrepresented decisions warranted such action.
• Court Decisions as Part of the Law of the Land — The Court's decisions form part of the law of the land, and misrepresenting the law is punishable under the CPRA and violates the Lawyer's Oath. The Court relied on this principle in treating counsel's misrepresentations as a serious matter requiring investigation by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

• "In labor cases, the Court reviews the legal correctness of the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) when it determines whether the labor tribunals gravely abused their discretion in deciding cases." — This passage states the standard of review applied by the Supreme Court in labor cases and frames the threshold for granting relief under Rule 45.
• "if the labor tribunals' ruling is based on substantial evidence, there is no grave abuse of discretion." — This is the ratio for denying Suazo's petition: because the NLRC's findings were supported by substantial evidence, no grave abuse of discretion could be attributed to it.
• "the unsuccessful delivery of the two most recent RTWOs cannot be taken against respondent, as it was Suazo who had moved out of the address without leaving a forwarding address." — This passage encapsulates the key factual basis for the finding of no constructive dismissal and places the consequence of non-receipt on the employee who failed to update his address.
• "the number and frequency of these misquoted and misrepresented decisions merit a motu proprio institution of an administrative disciplinary complaint against Atty. Ranion pursuant to Canon VI, Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) for a possible violation of Canon II, Section 8 of the same Code, which prohibits lawyers from misleading the Court as to the existence or contents of, among others, any law or other legal authority." — This passage defines the Court's basis for initiating disciplinary action against counsel and is central to the legal ethics component of the decision.

• Buenaflor vs. Stolt-Nielsen Philippines, Inc., 923 Phil. 790 (2022) — Cited for the standard of review in labor cases: the Court reviews legal correctness of the CA ruling and determines whether labor tribunals gravely abused discretion; if supported by substantial evidence, no grave abuse.
• Magno vs. Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc., 942 Phil. 668 (2023) — Cited for the rule that Rule 45 petitions raising purely factual issues must be dismissed because the Court is not authorized to review them.
• Emeritus Security and Maintenance Systems, Inc. vs. Dailig, 731 Phil. 319 (2014) — Cited for the respect accorded to factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies such as the NLRC when supported by substantial evidence.
• Benguet Electric Cooperative vs. Fianza, 468 Phil. 980 (2004) — Cited by Suazo but misrepresented; the actual case involved demotion, not an RTWO, and the Court ruled for the employer.
• Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 590 Phil. 490 (2008) — Cited by Suazo but misrepresented; the actual issue was the weight requirement for flight attendants, no notices of reassignment were issued, and the Court ruled for the employer.
• Shimizu Phils. Contractors, Inc. vs. Callanta, 646 Phil. 147 (2010) — Cited by Suazo but mischaracterized; the employee was retrenched, the dismissal was legal, and the Court ruled for the employer.
• Pascua vs. Bankwise, Inc., 824 Phil. 846 (2018) — Cited by Suazo but misrepresented; the actual case found no constructive dismissal because the employee resigned, and the employer was absolved from money claims.
• Blue Dairy Corporation vs. NLRC, 373 Phil. 179 (1999) — Cited by Suazo but misrepresented; the actual issue was transfer amounting to constructive dismissal, not floating status.
• Philippine Industrial Security Agency Corporation vs. Aguinaldo, 499 Phil. 215 (2005) — Cited by Suazo but misrepresented; the actual issue was transfer amounting to constructive dismissal, not floating status.
• Arriola vs. Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc., 741 Phil. 171 (2014) — Cited by Suazo but misrepresented; the actual case involved prescription and illegal dismissal, not proof of payment of 13th month and service incentive leave pay.
• Maranaw Hotels and Resort Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 596 Phil. 491 (2009) — Cited by Suazo with the wrong title and date; the actual case involved authority of the signatory and forum shopping, not proof of payment.

• Rule 45, Section 6, Rules of Court — Review by certiorari is discretionary; a petition may be denied if it raises no special and important reasons warranting review. The Court applied this in denying Suazo's petition.
• Canon II, Section 8, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability — Prohibits lawyers from misleading the Court as to the existence or contents of any law or legal authority. The Court found a possible violation by Atty. Ranion.
• Canon VI, Section 2, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability — Basis for the motu proprio institution of an administrative disciplinary complaint against Atty. Ranion.
• Article 8, Civil Code — The Court's decisions form part of the law of the land; cited in support of the seriousness of misrepresenting jurisprudence.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, J. Lopez, and Villanueva, JJ., concur.