G.R. No. 198538 - Exocet Security and Allied Services Corp. vs. Serrano

Petitioner: Exocet Security and Allied Services Corporation, a private security agency engaged in providing security personnel to various clients.
Respondent: Armando D. Serrano, a security guard initially assigned by Exocet to serve as close-in security personnel for high-profile individuals with JG Summit Holdings Inc.

Serrano was initially assigned on September 24, 1994 to provide VIP security for a corporate officer of JG Summit.
After eight years, he was re-assigned first to Lance Gokongwei and then to his wife, Mary Joyce Gokongwei, still in a VIP role.
He received a monthly salary of approximately P11,274.30.

On August 15, 2006, Serrano was relieved from his VIP security post.
For over six months after his relief, he was not given any new reassignment and was placed on what is described as a "floating status" or "temporary off-detail."
Exocet contended that after his relief he was offered an assignment in general security service due to the unavailability of VIP posts and that Serrano himself declined the non-VIP assignment.

On March 15, 2007, Serrano filed a complaint for illegal dismissal alleging that his prolonged floating status amounted to constructive dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter found that Serrano, although not expressly dismissed, was constructively dismissed due to being placed on floating status beyond a reasonable period.
The initial award included separation pay computed based on his length of service.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and modified the award to include backwages for a period when Serrano was not assigned.
Upon motion for reconsideration by Exocet, the NLRC later removed the award for backwages, ruling that Serrano was not constructively dismissed, attributing his termination to his own actions (refusal of reassignment).
Further motions by Serrano for reconsideration were denied by the NLRC.

The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC’s ruling by holding that Serrano was constructively dismissed for the prolonged period of floating status and ordered payment of separation pay and backwages.
Exocet then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari questioning the CA ruling, arguing that Serrano’s situation did not amount to a constructive dismissal.
The Supreme Court eventually granted the petition, analyzed the nature of floating status, and set aside the CA ruling regarding separation pay and backwages.

Exocet had, as early as September 2006, offered Serrano a position in the general security service.
Serrano’s insistence on being a VIP security guard led him to refuse the reassignment.
The factual record indicates that Exocet exercised its prerogative in reassigning him due to the lack of available VIP detail and acted in good faith throughout the process.

Whether Serrano was constructively dismissed from his employment by being placed on floating status for a period exceeding six months.

Whether the lapse of the six-month period in which Serrano was on floating status, combined with his subsequent refusal of the reassignment, legally constitutes grounds for constructive dismissal.
Whether the employer, Exocet, complied with the applicable labor standards and procedures for reassigning or terminating a security guard under the circumstances of temporary off-detail.
How the principles governing temporary retrenchment or lay-off under Article 292 of the Labor Code and DOLE Department Order No. 14 apply to the case.