KEMBAR78
People's Security Inc Flores and Tapiru: Miguel Maria Therese Louise C | PDF | Complaint | Employment
Scribd
Upload
108 views6 pages

People's Security Inc Flores and Tapiru: Miguel Maria Therese Louise C

This case involves a dispute between People's Security Inc. and two former employees, Flores and Tapiru, who were security guards assigned to Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company facilities. When the security services agreement ended, PSI recalled its guards but Flores and Tapiru claimed they were illegally dismissed. The NLRC and CA ruled the guards were not PLDT employees. Flores and Tapiru then filed an illegal dismissal case against PSI, which was dismissed on forum shopping grounds. The LA later found illegal dismissal by PSI but NLRC reversed, finding the guards abandoned their work.

Uploaded by

Therese Miguel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
108 views6 pages

People's Security Inc Flores and Tapiru: Miguel Maria Therese Louise C

This case involves a dispute between People's Security Inc. and two former employees, Flores and Tapiru, who were security guards assigned to Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company facilities. When the security services agreement ended, PSI recalled its guards but Flores and Tapiru claimed they were illegally dismissed. The NLRC and CA ruled the guards were not PLDT employees. Flores and Tapiru then filed an illegal dismissal case against PSI, which was dismissed on forum shopping grounds. The LA later found illegal dismissal by PSI but NLRC reversed, finding the guards abandoned their work.

Uploaded by

Therese Miguel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

People’s Security Inc

vs
Flores and Tapiru
MIGUEL MARIA THERESE LOUISE C.
• Flores and Tapiru were security guards previously employed by
People’s Security Inc., (PSI)
• The respondents were assigned at the various facilities of
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company pursuant to a
security services agreement between PSI and PLDT
• The security services agreement was terminated, and PSI recalled
its security guards assigned to PLDT
• Respondents along with other security guards employed by PSI,
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with NLRC against PLDT
and PSI claiming that they are PLDT employees
• PSI assigned respondents to the facilities of its other clients
• LA: respondents were employees of PLDT, entitled to be reinstated
• NLRC: set aside the LA decision, complainants are not employees
• CA: affirmed NLRC
• The respondents were relieved from their respective assignments
• Flores and Tapiru filed with the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC a
complaint for illegal dismissal against PSI
• Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping
• LA issued and order dismissing the respondents complaints on the ground
of forum shopping; reversed by NLRC remanded to LA for further
proceedings
• LA ruled that respondents were illegally dismissed
• Directed petitioners to jointly and severally liable to pay the former separation pay
and backwages
• LA dismissed petitioners defense of abandonment
• NLRC reversed: when respondents were relieved of their posts, they sought
employment from other security agencies
• The overt act of filing and illegal dismissala case only after they lost their case
against PLDT in the Supreme Court, finding work with another security agency
when the six months floating periods have not yet lapsed, and asking for separation
pay only after three years from their alleged dismissal from employment, are proofs
that respondents were the ones who severed the employer-employee relationship
with PSI
Whether or not respondents were illegally dismissed

• No merit to petitioner’s claim that respondents were not dismissed, but


merely relieved from their respective assignment
• The respondents pointed out that they were relieved from their previous
assignment, the petitioners refused to provide them with new assignments
• In termination cases, the burden of proving that the dismissal of the
employees was for a valid and authorized cause rests on the employer
• Considering that there is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for the
termination of employment, the law considers it a case of illegal dismissal
• The petitioners failed to prove that the respondents abandoned
their work.
• For abandonment to exist two requisites must concur: first, the
employee must have failed to report for work or must have been
absent without valid or justifiable reason; and second, there must
have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever
the employer-employee relationship as manifested by some overt
acts
• In illegal dismissal cases, the employee is given a period of 4 years
from the time of his illegal dismissal within which to institute the
complaint – based on Article 1146 of the Civil Code

You might also like