G.R. No. 230005 - 7th Fleet Security Services, Inc. vs. Loque

In May 2006, respondent Rodolfo B. Loque was hired as a security guard by petitioner Seventh Fleet Security Services, Inc. (Seventh Fleet) along with its President, Medy Lastica.
Loque had served the company for approximately eight years before the events leading to his dismissal.

In September 2013, Loque filed a complaint regarding underpayment of wages and other money claims against Seventh Fleet and Lastica.
Loque alleged that after filing his complaint he was subjected to hostile treatment, which later culminated in his sudden removal from duty on December 25, 2013 at the request of their client, Second Midland Offices Condominium Corp.
Following his removal, he faced a 10-day suspension starting December 26, 2013 based on a report alleging misconduct in connection with an incident at Second Midland.

After serving his 10-day suspension, on January 7, 2014, Loque reported for work but was informed he had been placed on “floating status” and was to await further directives.
On May 16, 2014, a letter was sent directing him to report to the office within 48 hours.
On May 19, 2014, Loque went to the office, was not allowed to enter, and left a letter with security guard Dario Amores, Jr. indicating his readiness to report for duty.
A second letter dated May 28, 2014 was allegedly issued to suggest that Loque had failed to report despite prior directives.
A subsequent letter from Loque on July 11, 2014 inquired about his employment status, emphasizing his compliance with return-to-work directives despite being barred from entering the premises.

On July 28, 2014, Loque filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, seeking separation pay and full backwages.
He argued that since he was placed on floating status for more than six months (from January 7, 2014 to July 28, 2014), this amounted to a constructive dismissal.

An incident occurred on November 7, 2013, where Loque was reported to have, off-duty, exited Second Midland with another security guard, Ferdinand Manaois, and later re-entered the premises using a key.
The security guards at Second Midland, aiming to avoid confrontation, reported the incident instead of confronting Loque.
Seventh Fleet required Loque to explain his actions, and he claimed inclement weather and a request by Engr. Nicolas Dayalo, Jr. (the building administrator) as the reasons for his actions.
Following recommendations by Operations Manager Renato Morelos, Loque was suspended for 10 days starting December 26, 2013.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision on February 12, 2015, finding Seventh Fleet and Lastica guilty of illegal constructive dismissal, awarding separation pay, full backwages, and attorney’s fees to Loque.
Seventh Fleet and Lastica appealed; the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling in a Resolution dated July 30, 2015, and later denied Loque’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated September 29, 2015.
On September 22, 2016, the Court of Appeals (CA) annulled the NLRC resolutions and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s Decision with modification, specifically upholding that the placement of Loque on floating status for over six months constituted constructive dismissal.
Seventh Fleet’s subsequent petition for reconsideration was denied on February 16, 2017, prompting the filing of the Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Loque maintained that his prolonged placement on floating status amounted to constructive dismissal.
Conversely, Seventh Fleet and Lastica argued that Loque had failed to report for work in spite of the general return-to-work orders they had issued, and they contended that there was no bar imposed on his reporting at the office.

Whether the prolonged placement of Loque on “floating status” for more than six months, without being assigned to a specific client, amounts to constructive dismissal.
Whether Seventh Fleet’s issuance of general return-to-work orders (via letters) absolved it from liability by fulfilling its duty to recall Loque.
Whether Loque’s actions and subsequent communications indicate abandonment or a desire to continue working, thereby negating his claim of constructive dismissal.
Whether the legal requirements under Article 301 [286] of the Labor Code (as applied by analogy) have been violated by Seventh Fleet, thus warranting the award of separation pay, full backwages, and attorney’s fees.