TL;DR
The Supreme Court ruled that security guards placed on floating status for over six months without a specific client reassignment are considered constructively dismissed, even if the security agency issues general return-to-work notices. This means security agencies cannot avoid illegal dismissal claims by simply sending notices to report back to the office without guaranteeing a definite posting. The decision emphasizes that security guards are entitled to separation pay, backwages, and other benefits if their floating status exceeds the allowable period, protecting their employment security against indefinite off-duty periods.
The Case of the Unfilled Post: When a Return-to-Work Order Isn’t Really a Job Offer
Samsudin Hamid, a security guard, found himself in a precarious position after being suspended for sleeping on duty. While serving his suspension, he received another memo stating he’d be relieved from his post at Midas Hotel due to client request. Upon completing his suspension, Hamid waited for reassignment, but none came. Despite the security agency, Gervasio Security, claiming they sent multiple notices for him to report for duty, Hamid filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing constructive dismissal due to prolonged floating status. The core legal question became: Does sending general return-to-work notices to a security guard on floating status prevent a finding of constructive dismissal if no specific client reassignment is offered within six months?
The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC initially sided with Gervasio Security, dismissing Hamid’s complaint. They reasoned that the agency had sent notices, and Hamid failed to prove non-receipt. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) further complicated matters by dismissing Hamid’s petition based on a supposed Quitclaim and Release, which, as it turned out, pertained to a completely separate case about a surety bond refund. The Supreme Court, in this instance, corrected the lower courts’ errors, highlighting two critical points. First, the CA mistakenly applied a quitclaim from a different case. Second, and more importantly, the Court clarified the legal standard for avoiding constructive dismissal in floating status situations for security guards.
The Supreme Court emphasized that placing security guards on “floating status” is a recognized management prerogative, allowing security agencies flexibility in assignments. However, this status is not indefinite. Philippine jurisprudence, as established in cases like Padilla v. Airborne Security Service, Inc., dictates a strict six-month limit. If a security guard remains on floating status beyond this period, it legally constitutes constructive dismissal. The rationale is to prevent employers from keeping employees in limbo without pay or assignment for extended periods. In Hamid’s case, he was placed on floating status in June 2011 and filed his complaint in January 2012, clearly exceeding the six-month threshold.
Gervasio Security argued they sent Hamid four notices to report for duty, attempting to demonstrate they did not intend to dismiss him. While the lower tribunals accepted these notices as sufficient, the Supreme Court disagreed, citing the precedent set in Ibon v. Genghis Khan Security Services. The Court stressed that a mere “general return-to-work order does not suffice.” The crucial element is not just recalling the employee to the agency office, but deploying them to a “specific or particular client” within the six-month period. The notices sent to Hamid only directed him to report to the agency for “immediate posting” without specifying any client or assignment. Therefore, these notices were deemed insufficient to negate constructive dismissal.
Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of abandonment, often raised by employers in constructive dismissal cases. Gervasio Security implicitly suggested abandonment by pointing out Hamid’s failure to respond to the notices. However, the Supreme Court reiterated that filing an illegal dismissal complaint promptly, as Hamid did, directly contradicts the notion of abandonment. Abandonment requires a “clear proof of deliberate and unjustified intent to sever the employer-employee relationship,” which is not present when an employee actively pursues legal action to contest their dismissal. The immediate filing of the complaint served as proof of Hamid’s desire to return to work, effectively nullifying any claim of abandonment.
Considering the prolonged floating status and the inadequacy of the return-to-work notices, the Supreme Court concluded that Hamid was indeed constructively dismissed. While reinstatement is typically the remedy for illegal dismissal, the Court acknowledged that after a decade since the complaint was filed, reinstatement was no longer practical. Citing Dela Fuente v. Gimenez, the Court opted for separation pay instead, calculated at one month’s salary for each year of service. Additionally, Hamid was awarded full backwages, other benefits, and attorney’s fees. The Court also imposed a six percent (6%) per annum interest on the total monetary award from the finality of the decision until full payment, aligning with prevailing jurisprudence.
This decision reinforces the protection afforded to security guards against indefinite floating status. It clarifies that security agencies must not only issue return-to-work notices but also ensure actual reassignment to a specific client within six months to avoid constructive dismissal claims. This ruling serves as a significant reminder of the employer’s responsibility to actively manage and deploy their security personnel, ensuring their continuous employment and fair treatment under the law.
FAQs
| What is constructive dismissal? | Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer’s actions make continued employment unbearable or impossible for the employee, forcing them to resign. It is considered an involuntary termination initiated by the employer. |
| What is floating status for security guards? | Floating status refers to a temporary off-duty status for security guards when there is no immediate client assignment available. Security agencies utilize this due to the nature of their industry, which depends on client contracts. |
| What is the 6-month rule regarding floating status? | The Supreme Court has established a rule that floating status for security guards should not exceed six months. Beyond this period, it is considered constructive dismissal unless there is a valid reason for the prolonged off-duty status that is not attributable to the employer’s fault. |
| What kind of return-to-work notice is required to avoid constructive dismissal? | A general return-to-work notice is insufficient. The security agency must offer a specific assignment to a particular client within the six-month floating status period. The notice should clearly indicate the client and the post where the security guard is being reassigned. |
| What are the remedies for constructive dismissal? | Employees who are constructively dismissed are entitled to remedies similar to those for illegal dismissal, including backwages (lost earnings from the time of dismissal until final judgment), separation pay (if reinstatement is not feasible), and potentially other damages and attorney’s fees. |
| Does filing an illegal dismissal case indicate abandonment of work? | No. Filing a complaint for illegal dismissal is considered proof of an employee’s desire to return to work and negates any claim of job abandonment by the employer. It demonstrates the employee’s intent to maintain the employment relationship, not sever it. |
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Hamid v. Gervasio Security, G.R. No. 230968, July 27, 2022
Leave a Reply