G.R. No. 87135 - Magalad vs. Premiere Ficing Corp.

This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioners Soliman Security Services, Inc. and Teresita L. Soliman.
The petition challenges the decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals which found that respondents—Igmedio C. Sarmiento, Jose Jun Cada, and Ervin R. Robis, all security guards—were illegally dismissed from employment.

Respondents were employed as security guards by Soliman Security Services, Inc. and assigned to work at Interphil Laboratories.
They worked seven (7) days a week for twelve (12) straight hours daily.
Respondents alleged systematic underpayment: They received only P275.00 per day for an eight-hour shift or P325.00 for a twelve-hour shift but were not granted additional benefits such as ECOLA, night shift differentials, holiday pay, or rest day premiums.
Deductions for cash bond and mutual aid contributions (P400.00 and P100.00 respectively) were made monthly.
Respondents claimed that when they sought discussion to resolve nonpayment of their benefits with petitioner Teresita, their concerns were dismissed and they were instead advised to tender their resignations.

Petitioner agency asserted that the respondents were placed under a “floating status” based on its contractual arrangements with its client – specifically pointing to a standing contract with Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, the predecessor-in-interest of Interphil Laboratories.
The agency maintained that the order to relieve the respondents from their posts was a normal administrative action dictated by the need to rotate security assignments every six (6) months.
It contended that various notices and letters were sent to the respondents urging them to report to the office for new assignments, implying that their failure to do so resulted in administrative abandonment.

On January 20, 2007, the agency issued notices to the respondents stating that they were being relieved from their current assignments under the standing contract with Interphil Laboratories and directing them to report to the office for new assignments.
On February 7, 2007, a specific letter was sent to respondent Robis directing him to report for a new assignment.
On February 22, 2007, the first complaint for illegal dismissal was filed with the Labor Arbiter.
On March 26, 2007, during a hearing before the Executive Labor Arbiter, the agency presented an offer for the respondents to return to work.
Additional letters dated April 24 and April 26, 2007 were sent, urging the respondents to clarify their intentions because they had not reported to the office despite the directives.
On August 3, 2007, respondents filed a Supplemental Complaint to preempt any argument regarding the pre-maturity of the filing of their illegal dismissal complaint.
Respondents executed their complaint affidavits on August 8, 2007.
A hearing subsequently led to a decision by the Executive Labor Arbiter on January 4, 2008, dismissing the complaint on the ground that respondents had abandoned their posts.

The NLRC reversed the decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter, ruling that the notices sent by petitioner were mere afterthoughts and did not qualify as effective return-to-work orders; thereby, respondents were found to have been illegally dismissed.
The NLRC held that the “floating status” did not constitute dismissal per se; however, the prolonged lack of reassignment beyond the statutory period turned the situation into constructive dismissal.
The NLRC’s decision ordered petitioner agencies to pay respondents:

The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC decision and denied petitioners' motions for reconsideration, finding no abuse of discretion in the NLRC’s ruling.

Whether or not the placement of security guards on “floating status” constitutes a valid management prerogative or amounts to constructive dismissal.

The issue centers on whether a temporary off-detail status is a legitimate administrative practice in the absence of specific return-to-work orders.
Whether the prolonged duration of floating status (exceeding six months) effectively undermines the security guards' employment rights.

Whether the agency complied with the procedural requirements and inherent obligations when directing respondents to report for new assignments.

The agency relied on a standing contract and subsequent notices; the adequacy of these communications and their timing were questioned.
The issue extends to whether the agency’s actions amounted to mere empty promises rather than substantive offers of reassignment.

The correctness of the NLRC’s determination regarding the computation of respondents’ monetary claims.

The computation of backwages, separation pay, and salary differentials based on the evidence presented was a key factual determination.
Petitioners argued that the NLRC erred in its monetary computations; however, this issue was viewed as within the discretion of the NLRC and not subject to review for errors of judgment.

Whether the petition for Review on Certiorari is a proper remedy to challenge the decision where the alleged errors pertain more to factual determinations rather than errors of jurisdiction.