G.R. No. 186614 - Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. vs. Valderama

Ronald P. Valderama was hired by Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. (petitioner) as a security guard on April 18, 2002.
He was assigned to work at the Philippine Heart Center (PHC) in Quezon City until his relief on January 30, 2006.
After January 30, 2006, no new assignment was given to him, leaving him on "floating status" for more than six months.

Valderama filed a complaint on August 2, 2006, alleging constructive dismissal and nonpayment of 13th month pay, with a prayer for damages.
Petitioner, on the contrary, contended that Valderama had voluntarily resigned.
The petitioner’s version brought forward several incidents:

On January 31, 2004, he was charged with conduct unbecoming after allegedly violating security rules.
Months later, failure to attend a mandatory seminar led to a seven-day suspension.
On June 5, 2004, he exhibited rudeness and discourtesy by addressing his superior in a high-pitched tone.
On January 22, 2005, he, among other guards, was made to explain their failure to report for duty.
On January 31, 2006, following an incident involving his confrontation with a superior, he was relieved from his post at PHC.

A pro-forma resignation letter dated October 4, 2004, cited by the petitioner.
The petitioner’s subsequent letter sent via registered mail on February 10, 2006, requesting Valderama’s confirmation on whether he was interested in reporting for duty, to which no reply was forthcoming.
Participation of Valderama in a “Re-Training Course” from February 20, 2006 to March 1, 2006, which raised doubts regarding the claim of his voluntary resignation.

The LA ruled that Valderama had been constructively dismissed.
The decision was based on the inconsistency of filing a complaint for illegal dismissal with an alleged voluntary resignation, as evidenced by the earlier resignation letter and further participation in training.
The LA ordered his reinstatement and awarded backwages and 13th month pay.

The NLRC modified the LA decision by removing the award of backwages and the reinstatement order.
It declared that Valderama was neither constructively dismissed nor had he voluntarily resigned, but he remained an employee.
The NLRC ordered Valderama to report immediately to work and maintained the payment of 13th month pay.

The CA reversed the NLRC’s resolutions and reinstated the LA decision.
It found that the prolonged floating status (over six months) without a new assignment constituted constructive dismissal.
The CA noted the incongruity between the claim of voluntary resignation and Valderama’s active participation in the re-training course.
The CA sustained the award of backwages and the order to reinstate Valderama, ruling against the petitioner’s claims.

Petitioner filed an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 claiming that the CA erroneously sustained Valderama’s constructive dismissal claim.
The Supreme Court ultimately denied the petition, affirming the CA decision.

The central issue was determining if the prolonged period of inactivity ("floating status") without a new assignment for more than six months amounted to constructive dismissal.
Whether the employee’s participation in a re-training course invalidated the petitioner’s assertion of voluntary resignation.

The dispute whether the failure to report for reassignment constituted abandonment.
Whether petitioner provided sufficient evidence proving a clear intent on the part of Valderama to sever the employer-employee relationship.

Whether the employer discharged its burden of proving that there was no available post for reassignment.
The issue addresses the legal principle that if a security guard remains on floating status beyond six months, the security agency must prove that a reassignment was not feasible.