Case Summary (G.R. No. 230005)
Background Facts
Loque was employed by Seventh Fleet in May 2006. He filed a complaint regarding underpaid wages against the company in September 2013, alleging hostility as retaliation for his complaint. After being relieved from his post in December 2013 at the request of Second Midland Offices Condominium Corp., his employer suspended him for ten days. Upon his suspension's completion, he was placed on floating status, during which he was not permitted to work. Subsequent failure to reinstate him led to his complaint for constructive dismissal filed on July 28, 2014.
Litigation Progression
Initially, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Loque on February 12, 2015, determining he was constructively dismissed, and awarded him separation pay and back wages. Seventh Fleet appealed this ruling to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which on July 30, 2015, reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and dismissed Loque’s complaint, citing management prerogative to place employees on floating status. Loque then sought a Petition for Certiorari from the Court of Appeals (CA), which on September 22, 2016, reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision.
Rulings of Lower Courts
The Labor Arbiter found that Loque had been effectively constructively dismissed, as his floating status exceeded six months without a proper assignment. The NLRC later contended that the floating status was valid and there were no instances of hostile treatment. However, the CA held that the NLRC had committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing Loque's complaint and reinstated the Labor Arbiter's ruling.
Legal Principles Applied
The Supreme Court maintained the CA’s findings while emphasizing that the burden of proof lay with the employer to establish that no alternative employment was available for Loque. They further clarified that the mere lapse of six months on floating status does not automatically imply constructive dismissal unless assessed in light of all surrounding circumstances.
Employer's Obligations
A key legal principle discussed was the necessity for Seventh Fleet to provide Loque with an assignment to a specific client within six months of his last deployment. The Court underscored the inadequacy of generic "return to work" notifications without a corresponding assignment, which could lead to constructive dismissal claims.
Final Court Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that Loque had been constructively dismissed due to Seventh Fleet's failure to deploy him to a specific assignment within the requisite timeframe. The ruling highlighted that Loque ha
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 230005)
Case Overview
- The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
- The petitioner is Seventh Fleet Security Services, Inc., while the respondent is Rodolfo B. Loque.
- The case was decided by the First Division of the Supreme Court on January 22, 2020.
- The Petition seeks to assail the Decision dated September 22, 2016, and Resolution dated February 16, 2017, of the Court of Appeals (CA) which annulled previous Resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Facts of the Case
- Rodolfo B. Loque was hired as a security guard by Seventh Fleet in May 2006.
- After filing a complaint for underpayment of wages in September 2013, Loque faced hostility from his employer and was relieved from his post on December 25, 2013, upon a request from a client.
- Following a 10-day suspension, Loque found himself on "floating status" starting January 7, 2014, with no work assignment until he filed a complaint for constructive dismissal on July 28, 2014.
- Seventh Fleet denied allegations of constructive dismissal, claiming Loque was treated kindly and asserting misconduct on his part.
- The Labor Arbiter found in favor of Loque, condemning Seventh Fleet for illegal constructive dismissal and awarding him separation pay, backwages, and attorney's fees.
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
- The Labor Arbiter ruled that Loque was constru