GR 105338; (December, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 105338 . December 27, 1994.
Apolinario Manipon, Jr., petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Securicor Watchman, Inc., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Apolinario Manipon, Jr., employed as a security guard and later promoted to Detachment-in-Charge, was assigned to a detachment in Cavite in February 1988. A service firearm and ammunition issued to him were lost while in the possession of a subordinate guard, Adelin G. Natata. Private respondent Securicor assessed petitioner for 75% of the value and deducted amounts from his salary. Petitioner was relieved from his post on June 1, 1988, and subsequently transferred to a new assignment for only three days. After a one-week assignment in September 1988, he was given no further duties despite regular reporting. On March 3, 1989, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, but the NLRC reversed this decision, dismissing the case.
ISSUE
Whether the act of private respondent in refusing to give petitioner a new assignment or post for more than six months constitutes constructive dismissal.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that petitioner was constructively dismissed. The Court found that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in relying on the Veterans Philippine Scout Security Agency case, as the factual milieu differed. In that case, a security guard awaiting a new post was provided an allowance and lodging. In contrast, petitioner was effectively sidelined after being relieved from his post following the firearm incident and his protest against salary deductions. His subsequent brief assignments were merely indirect ways of dismissing him.
The Court applied the doctrine from Superstar Security Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, which holds that a temporary “off-detail” or waiting period for security guards is not dismissal per se, as assignments depend on agency contracts. However, such inactivity must not exceed six months; otherwise, it constitutes constructive dismissal under Article 286 of the Labor Code. Petitioner was sidelined for over six months from June 1, 1988, without being properly informed of his “standby” status or any available post. The burden to prove post unavailability lay with private respondent, which it failed to discharge. Thus, petitioner was illegally dismissed. The Court ordered his reinstatement, payment of unpaid salaries for May 16-31, 1988, and back wages for three years from June 1, 1988, to June 1, 1991, minus the amount due for the lost firearm.