A.M. No. P-97-1254 - Anonymous vs. Geverola

The petitioner, Ravengar G. Ibon, was employed as a security guard by Genghis Khan Security Services beginning in June 2008.
He was initially assigned to work under Mr. Solis in New Manila, Quezon City.
In July 2008, he was transferred to the 5th Avenue Condominium in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City, where he remained until May 2009.
In June 2009, he was reassigned to the Aspen Tower Condominium, serving there until his last recorded duty on October 4, 2010.

After October 4, 2010, respondent failed to provide a new assignment despite prior promises, leaving the petitioner in a floating status.
During this period, he was reportedly paid a daily salary of P384.00, and deductions of P200.00 per month were made as a cash bond from September 2008 to September 2010.
The petitioner maintained that he was not assigned to any specific posting after his last duty, which formed the basis of his claim of constructive dismissal.

On May 10, 2011, the petitioner filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal.
His claims included underpayment of wages, holiday and rest day premiums, service incentive leave pay, non-payment of separation pay, and reimbursement of illegal deductions.
He argued that his continued floating status (lack of reassignment) amounted to constructive dismissal.

The respondent contended that the petitioner was not on floating status beyond six months as he was suspended on October 4, 2010 for sleeping on the job.
It maintained that an offer for reassignment was made to a new client, which the petitioner rejected due to pending license renewal, and that subsequent non-reporting for work justified the suspension.
Further, when the petitioner attempted to claim his 13th month pay in November 2010, the respondent did not provide it as it was not yet due; later, following a call from DOLE regarding the matter, a settlement was reached.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) issued a Decision on November 29, 2011, finding that the petitioner had been constructively dismissed due to the prolonged lack of assignment and ordered backwages from May 5, 2011, along with separation pay and other monetary claims.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA decision in its April 24, 2012 ruling, opining that there was no constructive dismissal since the respondent had sent letters ordering the petitioner to report back to work and even offered reinstatement.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC’s ruling in a decision dated July 3, 2015, concluding that there was no dismissal since the petitioner himself manifested a lack of interest in returning to work.

He did not receive the letters ordering him to report to work.
The letters lacked any indication of a specific assignment.
The prolonged floating status amounted to constructive dismissal, entitling him to separation pay along with moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

The respondent countered that the evidence showed no dismissal occurred and that awards for moral and exemplary damages were applicable only in cases of malicious or bad faith dismissal.
In his reply, the petitioner maintained that the absence of a continuous service assignment beyond six months justified his claim and that the subsequent offer of reinstatement was belated and ineffective in negating the constructive dismissal.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the NLRC ruling that the petitioner was not illegally dismissed from employment.

The petitioner contended that his prolonged floating status and lack of a specific reassignment should constitute constructive dismissal.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the NLRC ruling denying the petitioner’s monetary claims arising from illegal dismissal.

The petitioner sought monetary relief including backwages, separation pay, and additional damages, arguing that his rights were infringed by being left in floating status.

Whether the general letter-sending by the respondent sufficed to show compliance with the due process in reassigning the petitioner, particularly in light of the absence of a clearly defined assignment.