Title
Supreme Court
Quillopa vs. Quality Guards Services and Investigation Agency
Case
G.R. No. 213814
Decision Date
Dec 2, 2015
A security guard placed on floating status for over six months was constructively dismissed; a prior settlement on money claims did not bar his illegal dismissal complaint.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 213814)

Relevant Timeline

Petitioner Quillopa was assigned to various posts, with the last one being the West Burnham Place Condominium in Baguio City. On September 28, 2010, he was informed that he would be placed on a floating status, to which he repeatedly sought follow-up reassurances from the agency. He filed a first complaint on November 11, 2010, for various unpaid financial claims but later settled this claim through a Waiver/Quitclaim and Release on February 3, 2011. However, failing to receive a new assignment, he filed a second complaint on September 14, 2011, claiming illegal dismissal.

Nature of Employment Dispute

The core dispute resides in whether Quillopa's placement on floating status for an extended period constituted an illegal dismissal. Quillopa argued that being on floating status for over 11 months without reassignment amounted to constructive dismissal, claiming that the Waiver/Quitclaim executed after his first complaint did not preclude him from pursuing the second complaint for illegal dismissal.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Quillopa, stating that the previous Waiver/Quitclaim only addressed the claims in the first complaint and did not bar him from pursuing the illegal dismissal claim. It was determined that being on floating status beyond six months constituted constructive dismissal, thus awarding Quillopa a total of P205,436.00 for back wages, separation pay, and attorney's fees.

NLRC Findings

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) upheld the Labor Arbiter's decision on May 31, 2012, affirming that the Waiver/Quitclaim did not relate to the illegal dismissal claim. The NLRC found that Quillopa was indeed constructively dismissed given that he was on floating status for longer than legally allowed, which violated labor standards.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals, however, reversed this decision on February 19, 2014, concluding that the Waiver/Quitclaim represented a severance of the employment relationship and asserting that Quillopa lacked a viable case against QGSIA for illegal dismissal. This dismissal prompted Quillopa to seek further recourse through a petition.

Legal Standards on Constructive Dismissal

The Supreme Court highlighted that the concept of floating status for security guards is a temporary suspension of duty related to the lack of available assignments due to client decisions. This status does not inherently sever the em

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.