G.R. No. 105338 - Manipon, Jr. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioner, Apolinario Manipon, Jr., was employed as a security guard by private respondent on January 13, 1981.
He was later promoted to the post of Detachment-in-Charge.

In February 1988, petitioner was assigned to the Kawal Pag-ibig Homes in Gen. M. Alvarez, Cavite.
As Detachment-in-Charge, he was issued a service firearm (Squires Bingham Cal. 38 revolver, SN-1092050) along with five rounds of ammunition.
Petitioner handed over the firearm and ammunition to Adelin G. Natata, a subordinate guard of his detachment.
The service firearm and ammunition were subsequently lost while in Natata’s possession, with Natata admitting his fault for the loss.
Financial Liability Assessment:

Petitioner was assessed to pay P4,065.00, equivalent to 75% of the value of the lost items.
Natata was assessed to pay the remaining 25%, amounting to P1,355.00.

On June 1, 1988, petitioner was relieved from his post at Cavite and transferred to Carmel Farms in Pangarap Village, Caloocan City.
His assignment at Carmel Farms lasted only three days.
After this brief assignment, petitioner was not given guard duties until September 29, 1988, when he was temporarily assigned to a house in Forbes Park, Makati for one week.
Following the Forbes Park assignment, petitioner received no further assignment despite his regular appearance for duty.

On March 3, 1989, petitioner filed a complaint against private respondent alleging illegal dismissal, illegal deduction, violation of P.D. No. 851, and unpaid wages.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding that petitioner was illegally dismissed and ordered private respondent to grant him separation pay at the rate of one month’s pay for every year of service, while dismissing his other money claims.
Both parties appealed the Labor Arbiter’s decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
The NLRC, in its decision dated October 7, 1991, reversed the Labor Arbiter’s finding by interpreting petitioner’s situation as a placement on “reserve” or “standby” pending redeployment upon availability of a post.
Subsequent to a motion for reconsideration, NLRC maintained its ruling in its Resolution dated November 8, 1991, prompting the petitioner’s certiorari petition before the Supreme Court.

Whether the assailed decision of the NLRC was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by setting aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

Whether private respondent’s act of not providing petitioner with a new assignment or post for more than six months constitutes constructive dismissal.