Exocet vs.

Serrano

Facts: Serrano was assigned as close-in security for JG Summit by virtue of a

contract between Exocet and JG Summit. After eight years, respondent was re-
assigned to Gokongwei as close-in security. JG Summit relieved Serrano and
thereafter the latter reported back to Exocet. After six months, Serrano filed a case
of constructive dismissal alleging he was not given a post. For its defense, Exocet
denied the allegation stating that the respondent did not report for work and
demanded for VIP security (close-in). However, since that time Exocet have no client
I need of VIP security.

Issue: whether or not Serrano was constructively dismissed?

Ruling: No. While there is no specific provision in the Labor Code which governs the
"floating status" or temporary "off-detail" of security guards employed by private
security agencies, this situation was considered by this Court in several cases as a
form of temporary retrenchment or lay-off. The concept has been defined as that
period of time when security guards are in between assignments or when they are
made to wait after being relieved from a previous post until they are transferred to a
new one. As the circumstance is generally outside the control of the security agency
or the employer, the Court has ruled that when a security guard is placed on a
"floating status," he or she does not receive any salary or financial benefit provided
by law. Pido v. National Labor Relations Commission21 explains why:
Verily, a floating status requires the dire exigency of the employer’s bona fide
suspension of operation of a business or undertaking. In security services, this
happens when the security agency’s clients which do not renew their contracts are
more than those that do and the new ones that the agency gets. Also, in instances
when contracts for security services stipulate that the client may request the agency
for the replacement of the guard’s assigned to it even for want of cause, the
replaced security guard may be placed on temporary "off-detail" if there are no
available posts under respondent’s existing contracts.
That the placement of the employee on a floating status should not last for more
than six months. After six months, the employee should be recalled for work, or for
a new assignment; otherwise, he is deemed terminated. If after the period of 6
months, the security agency/employer cannot provide work or give assignment to
the reserved security guard, the latter can be dismissed from service and shall be
entitled to separation pay. The security agency must comply with the provisions of
Article 289 (previously Art. 283) of the Labor Code, 25 which mandates that a written
notice should be served on the employee on temporary off-detail or floating status
andto the DOLE one (1) month before the intended date of termination. Security
guards on reserved status who accept employment in other security agencies or
employers before the end of the above six-month period may not be given
separation pay.
Tatel vs. JLFP

Facts: Tatel was last assigned in BaggerWerken. After several months, he filed a
complaint for underpayment of salaries and wages and non-payment of other
benefits. Ten days after, he was placed on a floating status. After six months, without
any posts given he filed a complaint against respondents. In respondents’ defense,
Tatel was removed from his post due to several infractions. Respondents sent
memoramdum directing Tatel to report for work but ignored and failed to report
thus he deemed to have abandon his work.

Issue: whether or not there was abandonment?

Ruling: No. To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (a) the failure to
report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (b) a clear
intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as
the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. Mere
absence is not sufficient. The employer has the burden of proof to show a deliberate
and unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment without any
intention of returning. Abandonment is incompatible with constructive dismissal. The
complainant was placed on a floating status for more than six months. The record is
bereft of any evidence that he was given another detail or assignment.

Jordan vs. Granduer

Facts: Jordan, together with his co-employees, filed individual complaints for money
claims against Grandeur Security. They alleged that Grandeur Security did not pay
them minimum wages, holiday, premium, service incentive leave, and thirteenth
month pays as well as the cost of living allowance. They likewise claimed that
Grandeur Security illegally deducted from their wages the amount of five hundred
pesos (P500.00) per annum as premiums of their insurance policies. Jordan amended
his complaint and included illegal dismissal as his additional cause of action. In
defense, Grandeur Security denied that it terminated Jordan from employment. It
claimed that it merely issued Jordan a memorandum reassigning him from Quezon
City to Taguig City. It further insisted that Jordan abandoned his work and opted to
file an illegal dismissal case against it instead of complying with the memorandum.
Grandeur Security also denied non-payment of money claims to the complainants.

Issue: whether or not there was illegal dismissal?

Ruling: No. Respondent never dismissed complainant Jordan from the service neither
did they intend to do so in spite of the serious offenses said complainant had
committed in the early years of his employment with respondent such as sleeping
while on duty, said respondents never attempted to rid themselves of said
complainant’s services. It appears on record that complainant Jordan was merely
relieved of his duty and was being transferred on 24 May 2007, to another client of
respondents. Nothing on the memorandum sent him indicated his termination of
employment. Instead of reporting to respondent’s office to effect his transfer of
assignment he filed the instant complaint. Thus, respondent’s intimation that
complainant had abandoned his job has been rendered untenable under this
circumstance, "a charge of abandonment is totally inconsistent with the immediate
filing for illegal dismissal. This being the case, the court found no illegal dismissal
extant in this case nor abandonment of job to speak of. It likewise did not find
justification whatsoever for complainant Jordan’s allegation of strained relations
between him and respondents to warrant the grant of separation pay as prayed for
by him.

Alert vs. Bulusan

Facts: Respondents were assigned to DOST pursuant to a security contract.

Respondents filed a complaint alleging underpayment of wage. As a result of their
complaint, they were relieved from their posts in the DOST and were not given new
assignments despite the lapse of six months. Petitioners, on the other hand, deny
that they dismissed the respondents. They claimed that from the DOST, respondents
were merely detailed at the Metro Rail Transit, Inc. at the Light Rail Transit Authority
(LRTA) Compound in Aurora Blvd. because the wages therein were already adjusted
to the latest minimum wage. Petitioners presented Duty Detail Orders[5] that Alert
Security issued to show that respondents were in fact assigned to LRTA.
Respondents, however, failed to report at the LRTA and instead kept loitering at the
DOST and tried to convince other security guards to file complaints against Alert
Security. Alert Security filed a termination report with the Department of Labor and
Employment relative to the termination of the respondents. Upon motion of the
respondents, the joint complaint for illegal dismissal was ordered consolidated with
respondent’s earlier complaint for money claims.

Issue: whether there was illegal dismissal?

Ruling: Yes. As a rule, employment cannot be terminated by an employer without

any just or authorized cause. No less than the 1987 Constitution in Section 3, Article
13 guarantees security of tenure for workers and because of this, an employee may
only be terminated for just[17] or authorized[18] causes that must comply with the
due process requirements mandated[19] by law. Hence, employers are barred from
arbitrarily removing their workers whenever and however they want.The law sets the
valid grounds for termination as well as the proper procedure to take when
terminating the services of an employee. In the case at bar, respondents were
relieved from their posts because they filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint
against their employer for money claims due to underpayment of wages. This reason
is unacceptable and illegal. Nowhere in the law is providing for the just and
authorized causes of termination of employment there any direct or indirect
reference to filing a legitimate complaint for money claims against the employer as
a valid ground for termination. There should be proper and effective notice to the
employee concerned. It is the employers’ burden to show that the employee was
duly notified of the transfer. Verily, an employer cannot reasonably expect an
employee to report for work in a new location without first informing said employee
of the transfer. Petitioner’s insistence on the sufficiency of mere issuance of the
transfer order is indicative of bad faith on their part.