G.R. No. 182086 ; November 24, 2010
BEBINA G. SALVALOZA, representing her late husband, GREGORIO SALVALOZA, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, GULF PACIFIC SECURITY AGENCY, INC., and ANGEL QUIZON, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Gregorio Salvaloza was employed as a security guard by respondent Gulf Pacific Security Agency, Inc. in August 1996. He alleged continuous work for almost five years until his alleged termination in August 2001, after which he reported daily but was given no new assignment. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims in March 2002. Respondents countered that Salvaloza was not dismissed but was placed on floating status due to his failure to renew his security guard license and his poor performance record, as evidenced by a service history showing multiple reliefs from assignments and periods of absence without leave (AWOL). They also contended he submitted a spurious license.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Salvaloza, declaring his dismissal illegal and awarding reinstatement and monetary benefits. The NLRC reversed this decision, finding no illegal dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC ruling, prompting the petitioner to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC decision that Gregorio Salvaloza was not illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the rulings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centered on the nature of employment in the security agency industry and the concept of a “floating status.” The Court held that the employer-employee relationship between a security guard and a security agency is governed by a contract of employment, not by the contract for security services between the agency and its client. When a guard is relieved from a specific post, the employment relationship is not severed; the guard merely enters a period of “temporary inactivity” or “floating status” while awaiting a new assignment.
The Court found that Salvaloza was not dismissed but was validly placed on floating status. His service record indicated he was relieved from his last post on August 29, 2001, for habitual violations and old age. His subsequent failure to renew his mandatory security guard license, a basic qualification under Republic Act No. 5487, rendered him unemployable. The agency’s act of not assigning him due to his lack of a valid license was a lawful exercise of management prerogative. The period of floating status, which lasted from August 2001 until he filed his complaint in March 2002, was not unreasonable under the circumstances. Consequently, there was no illegal dismissal as the employer did not commit any dismissive act; the failure to assign was a direct result of the employee’s own failure to maintain the requisite license for his profession.