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

Tatel was hired by JLFP Investigation Security Agency, Inc. as a security guard, with his hiring date confirmed as March 14, 1998.
He was initially posted at BaggerWerken in the Port Area of Manila, where he was required to work 12 hours daily, Monday through Sunday.
His monthly salary was stated as P12,400.00 (later clarified by Tatel as P6,200.00 every fifteen days).

On October 14, 2009, Tatel filed an NLRC complaint against JLFP, its officer Jose Luis F. Pamintuan, and SKI Group of Companies with its officer Joselito Duefias, alleging underpayment of salaries/wages, non-payment of benefits, 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees (underpayment case).
On October 24, 2009, Tatel was placed on “floating status,” meaning he was not assigned any new postings.
On May 4, 2010—after six months of inactivity—Tatel filed a separate complaint for illegal dismissal against JLFP and its officers, including Paolo C. Turno and Jose Luis Fabella, seeking reinstatement, back wages, refund of a cash bond deposit amounting to P25,400.00, attorney’s fees, and other money claims.

Respondents denied that Tatel was dismissed; instead, they contended that on August 24, 2009, Tatel was removed from his post at BaggerWerken due to several on-duty infractions.
Subsequent to his removal, Tatel was reassigned at different locations:

An internal Memorandum dated November 26, 2009 was issued, directing Tatel to report back to work for reassignment; he acknowledged receipt on December 11, 2009, but claimed that upon reporting he was told only to “wait for possible posting.”

His date of employment (claims of March 1997 versus March 14, 1998).
The date of his dismissal (claims of dismissal on October 13, 2009 versus October 24, 2009).
The amount of his monthly salary.

These inconsistencies were noted by both the Labor Arbiter (LA) and the Court of Appeals (CA) in assessing the credibility of his claims.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision on September 20, 2010, dismissing Tatel’s illegal dismissal complaint for lack of merit, citing the inconsistencies in his statements.
The NLRC reversed the LA’s ruling in a Decision dated February 9, 2011, finding that Tatel had been illegally dismissed and ordering:

Reinstatement without loss of seniority, along with back wages, underpaid wages, a cash bond refund of P25,400.00, and attorney’s fees.
Alternatively, if reinstatement was unfeasible due to strained relations, the award of separation pay based on one month’s salary per year of service from his hiring date.

Subsequently, the NLRC’s Resolution dated March 31, 2011 denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration.
On June 10, 2011, respondents elevated the case to the CA via petition for certiorari.
The CA rendered a Decision on November 14, 2012, reversing the NLRC’s Findings and reinstating the LA Decision, emphasizing that Tatel’s inconsistent statements undermined his claim of illegal dismissal.
Tatel later moved for reconsideration, which was denied by a CA Resolution dated April 22, 2013, prompting the current petition.

August 24, 2009 – Removal from assignment at BaggerWerken.
September 16 to October 12, 2009 – Temporary reassignment to SKI.
October 21 to 23, 2009 – Brief posting at IPVG.
October 24, 2009 – Tatel placed on “floating status” (no assignments thereafter).
November 26, 2009 – Memorandum issued to report back, which Tatel acknowledged on December 11, 2009.
May 4, 2010 – Filing of the illegal dismissal case after a prolonged period of inactivity.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding Tatel to have been illegally dismissed.

Whether it constitutes an actual dismissal or a constructive dismissal resulting from prolonged "floating status."
Whether Tatel’s failure to secure a reassignment and report for work reasonably constitutes abandonment of his employment.

Dates of employment and dismissal.
Salary details, and whether these discrepancies affect the legitimacy of his illegal dismissal claim.

Whether the evidence supports the respondents’ claim that Tatel abandoned his work, thereby nullifying his claim of wrongful dismissal.