G.R. No. 206942 - Tatel vs. JLFP Investigation and Security Agency, Inc.

Tatel was hired by JLFP, a security agency, on March 14, 1998, and worked as one of its security guards.
He was initially posted at BaggerWerken Decloedt En Zoon in Manila’s Port Area and was required to work 12 hours daily from Monday through Sunday.
Tatel’s monthly salary was recorded as P12,400.00 (noting that the CA mistakenly stated an amount of P6,200.00).

On October 14, 2009, Tatel filed an underpayment complaint with the NLRC against JLFP and its officer Pamintuan, as well as against SKI Group of Companies and its officer Joselito DueAas, alleging underpayment, non-payment of benefits, 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees.
Shortly after, on October 24, 2009, he was placed on “floating status,” meaning he was not given any work assignment despite having been employed for over eleven years.
On May 4, 2010, after the lapse of six months with no assignment, Tatel filed a separate illegal dismissal complaint seeking reinstatement, backwages, refund of his cash bond deposit (P25,400.00), attorney’s fees, and other money claims.

Respondents (JLFP, Pamintuan, and Turno) denied that Tatel was dismissed, explaining that his removal from his posting at BaggerWerken (on August 24, 2009) was due to several on-duty infractions.
After removal, Tatel was reassigned to SKI from September 16, 2009, to October 12, 2009, and then to IPVG from October 21 to 23, 2009.
Respondents issued a Memorandum on November 26, 2009 instructing Tatel to report back to work for reassignment, noting that his last report was on October 26, 2009.
Tatel acknowledged receiving the November 26 Memorandum on December 11, 2009 but maintained that he was not given any assignment upon reporting, and further claimed inconsistent details regarding his employment dates and salary in his complaints.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) on September 20, 2010 dismissed Tatel’s illegal dismissal complaint, basing the decision largely on his inconsistent statements regarding employment and dismissal dates as well as salary.
Aggrieved by the LA’s ruling, Tatel appealed to the NLRC, which on February 9, 2011 reversed the LA’s decision and found him illegally dismissed.

The NLRC ruled in his favor by ordering reinstatement (if viable) or, alternatively, separation pay, along with backwages, underpaid wages, cash bond deposit refund, and attorney’s fees.

Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC, which was denied on March 31, 2011.
Subsequently, the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA) via petition for certiorari, with respondents raising additional arguments, including that Tatel abandoned his work and that his submission of inconsistent employment details undermined his claims.

On November 14, 2012, the CA reversed the NLRC ruling and reinstated the LA decision dismissing the illegal dismissal complaint, emphasizing the weight of Tatel’s inconsistent statements and finding that his reassignment history negated any claim of dismissal.
Tatel then moved for reconsideration in the CA, which was denied on April 22, 2013.
Finally, Tatel filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, leading to the Court’s decision on February 25, 2015, which initially found him constructively dismissed by reversing the CA’s ruling.

Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s February 25, 2015 decision, arguing that Tatel had abandoned his work and that no constructive dismissal had occurred.
In its reconsideration, the Supreme Court revisited the record, particularly highlighting that the November 26, 2009 Memorandum recalled Tatel before the six-month period ended.
The Court determined that there was no overt act of dismissal and that the burden of proof to show that Tatel was not dismissed lay with the employer.
Consequently, the Court ruled that Tatel was neither constructively dismissed nor did he abandon his work, leading to the dismissal of his illegal dismissal complaint and ordering him to return to work.

Whether Tatel’s placement on “floating status” for over six months, without a proper reassignment, constitutes constructive dismissal.
Whether or not the issuance and acknowledgment of the November 26, 2009 Memorandum effectively nullified claims of constructive dismissal.
The relevance and impact of Tatel’s inconsistent statements regarding his employment details on his claim of illegal dismissal.

Whether the employer, by recalling Tatel with the memorandum and offering subsequent postings, discharged its burden of proof regarding the non-dismissal.
Whether Tatel failed to meet his burden to establish that his work status was tantamount to an illegal dismissal.
Whether respondents’ subsequent actions and the procedural steps taken sufficiently demonstrate good faith and negate claims of abandonment or constructive dismissal.

Whether the finding that there was no actual dismissal legally entitles Tatel to backwages, underpaid wages, or separation pay.
How the established legal principles shift the burden of evidence in cases of alleged constructive dismissal.