G.R. No. 203185 - Superior Maintece Services, Inc. vs. Bermeo

Superior Maintenance Services, Inc. is a manpower agency engaged in supplying janitorial services to its clients.
In 1991, the agency hired Carlos Bermeo as a janitor and assigned him to various establishments over the years.
Bermeo was last stationed at Trinoma Mall until his contract there ended on March 30, 2008.

On August 28, 2008, Bermeo was deployed to French Baker at SM Marikina, one of Superior Maintenance’s clients.
French Baker requested a replacement upon learning that Bermeo was 54 years old, indicating an adverse reaction based on his age.
Subsequently, on September 5, 2008, Bermeo filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA) alleging constructive dismissal and seeking separation pay.

In its Decision dated February 6, 2009, the LA ruled that Bermeo was constructively dismissed, noting that he was not offered any work throughout the pendency of the proceedings, thereby rendering his period of floating status expired.
The LA ordered Superior Maintenance Services, Inc. and its representative to pay Bermeo separation pay amounting to ₱183,391.98, which included his unpaid 13th month pay, while dismissing other claims as lacking merit.

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA’s findings, holding that Bermeo was not constructively dismissed because his complaint was premature—his floating status had not yet reached the six-month period required for constructive dismissal under Article 301 of the Labor Code.
The NLRC retained the award of 13th month pay, noting the absence of proof that Bermeo had already received this benefit.
Bermeo’s motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied via a subsequent resolution.

Bermeo elevated the case to the CA through a Rule 65 petition for certiorari.
On March 30, 2012, the CA granted the petition, reversing and setting aside the NLRC’s decision and reinstating the LA’s finding of constructive dismissal and the corresponding award.
Despite the petitioners’ subsequent motion for reconsideration, the CA, in its Resolution dated July 26, 2012, denied such motion.

The core dispute centers on whether the employee’s status as “floating” or “off-detail”—a status arising from a lack of available assignments—constituted a situation that, after the lapse of six months without reassignment, amounted to constructive dismissal.
The differing decisions across the LA, NLRC, and CA highlight the complexities in applying Article 301 of the Labor Code, which analogizes such temporary lay-offs or retrenchments to instances of constructive dismissal if the employee is not recalled within the statutory period.

Whether Bermeo was constructively dismissed from his work, given that his complaint was filed before the six-month period allowed under Article 301 for a floating status to result in such dismissal.
Whether the petitioners’ subsequent contact with Bermeo to offer assignments after his filing of the complaint should negate or mitigate the claim of constructive dismissal.
How to correctly apply Article 301 of the Labor Code by analogy in contexts where the employment situation arises not from a bona fide suspension of business operations but from a shortage of available assignments.
The appropriate interpretation and relevance of precedents such as Salvaloza v. NLRC and Veterans Security Agency, Inc. v. Gonzalvo, Jr. in determining the threshold for constructive dismissal in cases involving floating status.