Case Summary (G.R. No. 198538)
Nature of the Case
The case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Exocet Security and Allied Services Corporation seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals’ (CA) March 31, 2011 Decision and September 7, 2011 Resolution which mandated Exocet to pay Armando D. Serrano, the respondent, separation pay and backwages on grounds of illegal dismissal.
Antecedent Facts
Exocet is engaged in providing security personnel and assigned Serrano as close-in security to various corporate clients over an extended period. Serrano was relieved from his role on August 15, 2006, and did not receive a reassignment for over six months, prompting him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal on March 15, 2007. Exocet defended itself, alleging that Serrano chose not to report for reassignment and preferred a VIP security position. The Labor Arbiter found Serrano constructively dismissed due to being in a floating status without reassignment for more than six months, ordering Exocet to pay him separation pay.
Labor Arbiter and NLRC Rulings
The Labor Arbiter concluded Serrano had been constructively dismissed and directed Exocet to pay him separation pay. However, the NLRC initially affirmed the Arbiter's decision but later modified its ruling, stating Serrano was not constructively dismissed as the delay in reassignment was attributed to his own refusal of non-VIP positions. This resolution was upheld despite Serrano's motion for reconsideration, which ultimately led him to petition the CA.
Court of Appeals Decision
The CA reversed the NLRC's September 2, 2009 Resolution, ruling Serrano was constructively dismissed due to Exocet's failure to reassign him within the six-month timeframe after being placed on floating status. The appellate court ordered Exocet to pay Serrano both separation pay and backwages, prompting Exocet to seek further review from the Supreme Court.
The Issue
The central issue in this case revolves around whether Serrano was constructively dismissed from his employment with Exocet.
The Court’s Ruling on Constructive Dismissal
The Supreme Court granted Exocet's petition, finding merit in the argument against constructive dismissal. The Court clarified that while floating status is not directly treated in the Labor Code, it is analogous to temporary lay-off due to lack of assignments, and should not exceed six months. After this period, if no assignment is available, the employee may be deemed terminated unless the employer has complied with appropriate procedural requirements, as delineated in the Labor Code and associated department orders.
Burden of Proof and Employment Relationship
The Court emphasized that it is the employer's burden to prove that no posts are available for the employee awaiting reassignment. It highlighted that Serrano had been offered, albeit no VIP positions, a role in general security which he refused. Thus, Serrano's own obstinacy regarding accepting lower-tier assignments contributed to his extended period without work, absolving Exocet from liability for constructive dismissal.
Responsibilities of the Security Agency
The Supreme Court noted the prerogative of Exocet to reassign personnel and underscored the requirement of good faith
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 198538)
Nature of the Case
- This case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
- The petitioners, Exocet Security and Allied Services Corporation and Ma. Teresa Marcelo, seek to reverse the decisions of the Court of Appeals from March 31, 2011, and September 7, 2011.
- The appellate court ordered the petitioners to pay respondent Armando D. Serrano separation pay and backwages for alleged illegal dismissal from employment.
Antecedent Facts
- Exocet Security and Allied Services Corporation (Exocet) provides security personnel to clients, including JG Summit Holdings Inc.
- Armando D. Serrano was assigned as close-in security for various executives of JG Summit from September 24, 1994, until August 15, 2006.
- After being relieved of his duties on August 15, 2006, Serrano reported back to Exocet but received no reassignment for over six months.
- On March 15, 2007, Serrano filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
- Exocet defended itself by stating that Serrano refused to accept reassignments, claiming he was only willing to work in VIP security roles.
Labor Arbiter's Decision
- The Labor Arbiter ruled Serrano was constructively dismissed, as he was on floating status for over six months without reassignment.
- Serrano was awarded separation pay amounting to P46,800.00, computed based on his years of service.
NLRC Resolutions
- Initially, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision but later removed the award for b