Jonathan I.

Sang-an versus
Equator Knights Detective and Security Agency, Inc.

Facts:

Jonathan was the Assistant Operation Manager pf the respondent Equator Knights
Detective and Security Agency, Inc. (Equator). He is in-charge of assisting in the
operations of the security services, and was also in-charge of safekeeping the
companys firearms.

On April 21, 2001, the respondent discovered that two firearms were missing from
their inventory. According to their investigation, Jonathan might have been
responsible for the loss.

On April 24, 2001, Equator suspended Jonathan from work pending further
investigation.

On May 8, 2001, while Jonathan was still under suspension, a security guard from
Equator was apprehended by policemen for violating the COEs gun ban rule. The
security guard stated in his affidavit that the gun was issued by Jonathan.

On May 24, 2001, Jonathan filed with the NLRC a complaint for illegal suspension
with prayer for reinstatement. In his position paper however, he treated his case as
one for illegal dismissal and alleged that he was denied due process when he was
dismissed. On the other hand, Equator argued that Jonathans dismissal was not
illegal but was instead for a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code.

On July 30, 2001, the LA rendered decision dismissing the complaint. It declared
that no illegal dismissal took place because Jonathans services were terminated
with just cause due to the 2 infractions he committed:
He was suspended when he issued a firearm to a Security Guard, then
replaced it with another one, then took Equators firearms with him and since
then both firearms were lost.
He issued an unlicensed firearm to a Security Guard stationed in one of the
business establishments in Bais City which is a client of the respondent.

Jonathan appealed the LAs decision to the NLRC, saying that there was no hearing
or investigation of any kind; and he was not given any chance or opportunity to
defend himself. NLRC found that Equator only issued a letter to address his
suspension but not his dismissal. It held that Equators letter informing him of his
temporary suspension until further notice did not satisfy the requirements for due
process for a valid dismissal.

NLRC modified LAs decision and ordered Equator to pay Jonathan backwages from
April 24, 2001 until the date of NLRCs decision. Equator moved for reconsideration
but NLRC denied the motion, prompting the filing of a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rule of Court with the CA.
CA reversed the decision of the NLRC, finding that Equator substantially complied
with the procedural requirements of due process. I found that the letter given to
Jonathan did not mean that he was dismissed; rather he was only suspended.
CA found that Jonathan filed his complaint for illegal suspension on May 2, 2001.
During the pendency of the illegal suspension case before the LA, Jonathan
committed another offense on May 8, 2001 when he issued the unlicensed firearm
to Equators security guard. The CA found that Equators June 7, 2001 position
paper brought Jonathans second offense before the LA for resolution; thus,
Jonathan was not denied due process.

The CA reinstated the LAs decision dismissing Jonathans complaint.

Jonathan filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied. He thereafter files
the present petition.

Jonathan contends that when Equator filed for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC, they failed to pay the cash
or surety bond Without complying to this condition, the petition should have been
dismissed. Jonathan also contends that NLRCs decision must be sustained.

Equator on the other hand, submits that the rule on posting cash or surety in not
applicable in a petition for certiorari. It also submits that both LA and NLRC concur
finding just cause in the dismissal of Jonathan, hence, Jonathans subsequent
dismissal is valid.

Issues:

Whether Jonathan was validly dismissed

Whether the posting of a cash or surety bond for the filing of a petition for certiorari
under the Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the CA.

Decision:

According to CA the requirement of a cash or surety bond as provided

under the Article 223 of the Labor Code only applies to appeals from the
orders of the LA to the NLRC. It does not apply to special civil actions such
as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In fact,
nowhere under Rule 65 does it state that the bond is required for the filing
of the petition.

Article 282(A) of the Labor Code provides that an employee may be

dismissed on the ground of serious misconduct or willful disobedience of
the lawful orders of his employer or representative about his work. By
losing two firearms and issuing an unlicensed firearm, Jonathan committed
serious misconduct and placed Equator and its employees at risk of being
made legally liable. Thus, equator had a valid reason that warranted
Jonathans dismissal from his employment at Assistant Operation
Manager.

The Court however finds that Equator failed to observe proper procedure
in terminating Jonathans employment. Since Jonathan had been dismissed
in violation to his right to procedural due process but for a just cause.

The Court partially granted the petition in the decision dated September
29, 2005, and the resolution dated May 29, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP. No. 86677 are affirmed with modification. Equator had
sufficient basis to terminate Jonathans employment whose dismissal is
thus declared substantively valid. However, he was denied his right to
undergo due process for the lack of the required notice of dismissal.
Equator was ordered to pay Jonathan Php 30,000.00 as nominal damages
for its non-compliance with the procedural due process.