G.R. No. 173390 - Lagua vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner Allan M. Ador was hired by respondent Jamila and Company Security Services, Inc. on May 27, 2010 as a security guard, working 12-hour shifts on a shifting schedule from Monday to Sunday.
He alleged non-payment of several benefits, including holiday pay, rest day pay, overtime, service incentive leave, 13th month pay (except a token amount), ECOLA, night shift differential, and other statutory benefits.
A brawling incident in 2012 led to the security agency withholding further posting assignments from him between April 2012 and April 2013.

On June 11, 2013, petitioner approached the HR Manager, Eddimar Arcena, requesting a new assignment. He was advised to renew his security guard license and other clearances.
Despite his compliance in reporting to the office, he was surprised to later receive three notices (dated June 29, July 31, and August 31, 2013) communicating the agency’s intention to terminate him.
These notices were only dispatched by registered mail on August 23, September 6, and October 4, 2013, respectively.
On September 18, 2013, after the second notice, petitioner submitted a written explanation stating he could not afford to renew his documents.

On November 27, 2013, petitioner received a Memorandum (allegedly dated “September 31, 2013” despite the typographical anomaly) terminating his employment on grounds of insubordination.
During an arbitration conference on January 23, 2014, respondents clarified that petitioner was not dismissed but merely required to update his documents and report for a new posting under RA 5487.
Despite this clarification, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal along with additional claims.

The Labor Arbiter, in a Decision dated June 30, 2014, ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed, awarding him separation pay (one month per year of service), full backwages from October 1, 2013, and attorney’s fees (10% of the monetary award).
Subsequently, the NLRC, in its Decision dated December 29, 2014, reversed the labor arbiter’s full award, holding that petitioner had been constructively dismissed due to being on “floating status” for almost one year (May 12, 2012 to April 11, 2013). It awarded separation pay computed at one-half month salary for every year of service plus 10% attorney’s fees.

The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated July 24, 2018, found that petitioner was neither illegally nor constructively dismissed, reasoning that:

The “floating status” period was a result of petitioner’s failure to renew necessary documents;
The security agency had provided return-to-work notices, albeit belatedly, and offered the opportunity to resume work within statutory limits.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied by Resolution dated February 18, 2019.
In his present petition, petitioner challenged the CA ruling, arguing that respondents unlawfully terminated him without just or authorized cause, and that his monetary claims should be granted on the ground of illegal dismissal.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner was neither illegally nor constructively dismissed.

Did the application of the “floating status” doctrine and its six-month maximum period justify a constructive dismissal?
Were the procedural due process rights of the petitioner violated due to the manner and timing of the notices sent by respondents?
Is the termination on the ground of insubordination valid given the delays in communication and absence of specific requirements as mandated by relevant DOLE Department Orders?