A.C. No. 6387 - Tolentino vs. So

On September 1, 1986, petitioner Macario S. Padilla was hired by respondent Airborne Security Service, Inc. as a security guard.
He was first assigned at an outlet of Trebel Piano along Ortigas Avenue Extension in Pasig City.
Padilla allegedly rendered continuous service until June 15, 2009 at City Advertising Ventures Corporation, after which he was relieved of his post and instructed to await a re-assignment order.

On July 27, 2009, Padilla received a letter directing him to report for assignment and deployment; however, upon inquiry he was informed that no assignment was yet available.
A subsequent letter dated September 9, 2009 reiterated the instruction to report to the office, prompting Padilla to send a reply letter on September 22, 2009 and personally inquire with Mr. Dagang, the Operations Director.
During the inquiry, he was informed that his age (being over 38) was allegedly a factor complicating his re-assignment and was even advised to resign—a suggestion he refused.
In December 2009, when he reported to the office to collect his 13th month pay, he was again persuaded to submit his resignation.

Respondents maintained that Padilla was relieved from his post on account of a client’s request and, later, that he abandoned his work by failing to comply with instructions.
A series of letters (dated July 27, September 9, January 12, and May 27, 2010) were sent to Padilla, requiring him to report to the office and explain his alleged unauthorized absences.
Respondents countered that these letters, being merely general return-to-work orders, indicated that Padilla did not report for work, thereby alleging abandonment of duty.

With no re-assignment and still experiencing extended floating status, Padilla filed his Complaint for illegal dismissal on February 23, 2010, impleading Airborne and its president, respondent Catalina Solis.
The Labor Arbiter, followed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), dismissed Padilla’s complaint by crediting the respondents’ assertion that he had not reported for work and that he effectively abandoned his duties.
The Court of Appeals later upheld these findings in its April 18, 2013 Decision and November 11, 2013 Resolution.
On petition before the Supreme Court, the central issue became whether Padilla was indeed constructively dismissed by being placed on an extended floating status beyond the six-month threshold.

The case involved a broader question regarding the validity of placing security guards on floating status as an exercise of management’s prerogative, provided it does not exceed six (6) months.
It was alleged that Padilla’s prolonged floating status, apparently based on his age, resulted in a de facto forced separation and thus amounting to constructive dismissal.
The lower courts’ findings, which attributed his non-appearance at work to abandonment, were challenged on the grounds that they misapprehended critical facts and overlooked material details regarding both his persistent inquiries for re-assignment and the lack of specific new assignment orders.

Whether the placement of security guards on floating status constitutes a valid exercise of management prerogative provided that such status does not exceed six (6) months.
Whether a floating status that lasts beyond six (6) months amounts to constructive dismissal of the employee.
Whether general return-to-work orders (without specifying a particular client or detailed assignment) can be legitimately used to rebut claims of constructive dismissal.
Whether an employee’s age, in itself, can be a valid ground to deny timely re-assignment or employment, thus indirectly serving as a basis for dismissal.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that petitioner abandoned his work and failed to account for the totality of circumstances indicating constructive dismissal.