G.R. No. 222748 . April 3, 2019.
AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, vs. ARNULFO M. EGOS, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Arnulfo M. Egos was employed as a janitor by petitioner Airborne Maintenance and Allied Services, Inc., a manpower agency, and was assigned to its client, Meralco’s Balintawak Branch. After nearly twenty years, the service contract between Airborne and Meralco expired on June 30, 2011, and a new contractor, Landbees Corporation, absorbed all of Airborne’s employees except Egos. Airborne claimed Egos was excluded due to a heart ailment. Egos subsequently obtained a medical certificate declaring him fit to work and presented it to Airborne, but he was ignored and told no work was available. Feeling dismissed, Egos filed a complaint for constructive dismissal on August 5, 2011.
Airborne insisted Egos was not dismissed but was on floating status due to the contract termination. It claimed it directed all employees, including Egos, to report for reposting. It alleged it sent letters on August 12 and September 21, 2011, to Egos’s last known address, directing him to report to a new assignment at Meralco Commonwealth. Both letters were returned with “RTS unknown” notations. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, finding constructive dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s ruling.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the NLRC’s finding that respondent Arnulfo M. Egos was constructively dismissed from employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the rulings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, holding that Egos was constructively dismissed. The legal logic centered on the employer’s failure to comply with substantive and procedural due process in termination and the insufficiency of its claim of placing the employee on a valid floating status.
The Court emphasized that for a dismissal to be legal, it must be for a just or authorized cause and must satisfy the twin requirements of notice and hearing. Airborne failed on both counts. It did not provide any written notice to Egos specifying the grounds for his termination nor afford him an opportunity to be heard. The belatedly sent letters directing him to report were deemed insufficient as they were never received, evidenced by the “RTS unknown” returns, and were sent only after the complaint was filed, indicating they were mere afterthoughts.
Crucially, the Court found that Airborne failed to substantiate a bona fide suspension of its operations or a legitimate reason to place Egos on floating status. A floating status must be temporary and due to causes beyond the employer’s control, such as a bona fide suspension of operations. Airborne did not prove this. Furthermore, the totality of circumstances—including ignoring Egos’s follow-ups and medical clearance, the absorption of all other employees by the new contractor, and the failure to properly notify him of a new assignment—constituted an act of clear discrimination and insensibility that made continued employment unreasonable. These acts amounted to a dismissal in disguise, compelling Egos to sever his employment, thereby constituting constructive dismissal.