G.R. No. 204761 ; April 2, 2014
EMERITUS SECURITY AND MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS, INC., Petitioner, vs. JANRIE C. DAILIG, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Emeritus Security and Maintenance Systems, Inc. hired respondent Janrie C. Dailig as a security guard in August 2000. His last assignment was at Panasonic in Calamba, Laguna, starting December 16, 2004. On December 10, 2005, respondent was relieved from his post. He claimed that from December 2005 to May 2006, he repeatedly followed up for a new assignment at petitioner’s office but was not given one, resulting in a floating status exceeding six months, which he argued constituted illegal dismissal. Petitioner denied dismissal, alleging it ordered respondent to report to the head office within 48 hours after his relief and sent a notice to his last known address on January 27, 2006, requiring him to report within 72 hours, warning that failure would indicate disinterest in employment. Petitioner asserted respondent failed to comply and was absent without leave. Respondent filed complaints for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent, declaring illegal dismissal and ordering reinstatement with full backwages from December 10, 2005. The NLRC affirmed but modified the reckoning date for backwages to June 10, 2006. The Court of Appeals affirmed the illegal dismissal finding but ordered payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement, citing strained relations. Petitioner complied with the reinstatement order by assigning respondent to work under a sister company, Emme Security and Maintenance Systems, Inc., starting February 2008.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent was illegally dismissed.
2. If illegally dismissed, whether respondent is entitled to separation pay instead of reinstatement.

RULING

1. Yes, respondent was illegally dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the unanimous findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals. Petitioner admitted relieving respondent from his post on December 10, 2005, and respondent remained on floating status for over six months (until he filed his complaint on June 16, 2006). Petitioner’s claim of sending a notice to respondent was unsubstantiated and self-serving. Citing Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Valderama, the Court held that a security guard’s floating status beyond six months constitutes constructive dismissal. Factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies, supported by substantial evidence and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded finality.
2. No, respondent is not entitled to separation pay; reinstatement is proper. Article 279 of the Labor Code mandates reinstatement as the general rule for illegally dismissed employees. Separation pay is an exception, warranted only under specific circumstances such as strained relations, long passage of time, or feasibility issues, as outlined in Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission. Here, the Court found no evidence of strained relations between the parties. Petitioner had complied with the Labor Arbiter’s reinstatement order by assigning respondent to work (through its sister company, Emme, which shared the same Board of Directors and officers, effectively making them one entity). Respondent’s claim that he was not reinstated by petitioner but by another company was raised only in his Comment before the Supreme Court and was unsupported. Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in awarding separation pay. The Supreme Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision but modified the computation of backwages to run from June 10, 2006 (the date of illegal dismissal) until reinstatement in February 2008.