Title
Ador vs. Jamila and Company Security Services, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 245422
Decision Date
Jul 7, 2020
Security guard placed on prolonged floating status without valid justification, leading to constructive dismissal; SC ruled in his favor, awarding separation pay, backwages, and attorney’s fees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 245422)

Petitioner

Allan M. Ador alleged he was hired on May 27, 2010 as a security guard, worked 12-hour shifting schedules, and was deprived of holiday pay, rest day pay, night shift differential, overtime pay, 13th month pay (save for P3,000), service incentive leave, paternity leave benefits and other statutory entitlements. He claims that after involvement in a brawl he was denied posting assignments from April 2012 to April 2013, and that respondents later terminated him for insubordination despite his attempts to report and explain.

Respondents

Jamila and Company Security Services, Inc. maintained that Ador received all statutory wages and benefits and that he was placed on off-detail/floating status because he failed to renew required clearances and his security guard license as mandated by RA 5487. Respondents sent three notices to report (dated June 29, July 31, and August 31, 2013) and later issued a memorandum of termination dated purportedly September 31, 2013, for insubordination after he failed to comply with documentary renewal requirements and did not report to work as directed.

Key Dates and Procedural History

  • Employment began: May 27, 2010.
  • Floating/off-detail period: May 12, 2012 to April 11, 2013 (per the record).
  • Notices to report dated: June 29, 2013; July 31, 2013; August 31, 2013 (registered mail stamps show receipt on August 23, September 6, and October 4, 2013).
  • Memorandum of termination dated (typographical error in record): September 31, 2013.
    Procedural steps: Labor Arbiter declared illegal dismissal (June 30, 2014) and awarded separation pay and backwages; NLRC reversed and found constructive dismissal and awarded separation pay at one-half month per year plus attorney’s fees; Court of Appeals held no illegal or constructive dismissal and ordered employer to seek assignment; Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA, and ruled Ador was constructively dismissed.

Applicable Law and Guiding Authorities

Primary legal framework used by the Court: the 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable to cases decided 1990 or later), the Labor Code (provisions interpreted include Article 292 regarding non-termination during bona fide suspensions not exceeding six months and Article 297 on willful disobedience/insubordination), Republic Act No. 5487 (Private Security Agency Law), and DOLE Department Order No. 14, Series of 2001 (Guidelines Governing the Employment and Working Conditions of Security Guards and Similar Personnel). The decision also relies on established jurisprudence interpreting “floating status” and the six-month rule (e.g., Tatel v. JLFP, Salvaloza v. NLRC, Padilla v. Airborne Security Service, Soliman Security Services, Inc. v. Sarmiento, Peak Ventures Corp. v. Heirs of Villareal).

Claims and Core Factual Disputes

Ador alleged constructive and actual illegal dismissal and asserted entitlement to backwages, separation pay, and unpaid statutory benefits. The central factual disputes involved (1) the duration and justification for Ador’s floating/off-detail status, (2) whether he had an expired security guard license or other disqualifying documentary deficiencies, (3) whether the notices to report satisfied statutory and DOLE requirements and afforded procedural due process, and (4) whether his conduct amounted to insubordination that lawfully justified termination.

Labor Arbiter’s Ruling

The Labor Arbiter found illegal dismissal. Key holdings: Ador did not ignore the notices; notices were belatedly sent and he reported to the office when he received them; he submitted an explanation that he lacked funds to renew documents; respondents terminated him without affording adequate procedural due process and with only a single termination notice; reinstatement was impracticable due to strained relations, so separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and full backwages were awarded (computation reflected in Annex A).

NLRC Ruling

The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s finding of illegal dismissal and instead concluded constructive dismissal had occurred. It reasoned that Ador’s failure to renew documents justified non-assignment but recognized that he had been on floating status for approximately one year; accordingly, the NLRC awarded separation pay equivalent to one-half month salary per year of service and ten percent attorney’s fees, treating the situation under DOLE D.O. No. 14 provisions applicable to security guards.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals held that Ador was neither illegally nor constructively dismissed. It found no bad faith on the security agency and emphasized Ador’s failure to renew required documents as the reason he did not receive assignments. The CA ordered the employer to look for an available assignment within 30 days and set conditions for reinstatement or, if no post was available, compliance with DOLE requirements and payment of separation pay at one-half month per year.

Issue Presented to the Court

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that petitioner was neither illegally dismissed nor constructively dismissed.

Standard of Review

The Court emphasized deference to factual findings of labor tribunals and the Court of Appeals where supported by substantial evidence but noted that the rule is not absolute. Where appellate factual findings are contrary to findings of the quasi-judicial agency or unsupported by the record, the Supreme Court may depart from such conclusions.

Constructive Dismissal Analysis and Conclusion

The Court found constructive dismissal: petitioner’s floating status extended beyond six months (from May 12, 2012 onward) — a threshold grounded in Article 292 and consistent jurisprudence — because respondents only required document renewal after seven months (December 17, 2012) and the three notices were sent after more than one year had elapsed. The Court examined documentary evidence showing Ador’s security guard license was valid (issued March 29, 2012, expiring March 29, 2015). Consequently, respondents’ insistence that assignment could not be given due to expired license was misleading and unjustified. Under established doctrine, floating status extending beyond six months without justification constitutes constructive dismissal.

Insubordination Finding and Procedural Due Process

Even if prior constructive dismissal were not established, the Court concluded that the subsequent termination for insubordination was unlawful. The elements of insubordination require a willful wrongful attitude and violation of a reasonable, lawful, and known order relating to duties. The notices relied upon were general, lacked the specific assignment details required by Section 5.2 of DOLE D.O. No. 14 (job description, hours and shifts, applicable premiums, etc.), and were sent late by registered mail. Petitioner reported to the office when he received the notices and provided a written explanation of financial inability to renew documents. The Court treated the invocation of insubordination as an after-the-fact attempt to justify an earlier constructive dismissal and found no reasonable proportionality between the alleged disobedience and the penalty of dismissal.

Remedies and Computation Principles

Given the finding of constructive dismissal and the absence of an authorized cause for termination under applicable law and DOLE D.O. No. 14, the Court applied the remedies for illegal or constructive dismissal: (1) reinstatement or separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary per year of service; and (2) backwages. The Court awarded separation pay at one month per year in lieu of reinstatement because relations were strained and a considerable period had elapsed; petitioner himself sought separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and eight years had lapsed. Backwages were ordered from May 12, 2012 (the start of floating status) until the finality of the decision, consistent with Peak Ventures v. Heirs of Villareal. The Court

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms