G.R. No. 143215; July 11, 2002
SOLIMAN SECURITY SERVICES, INC. and/or TERESITA L. SOLIMAN, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and EDUARDO VALENZUELA, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Eduardo Valenzuela, a security guard employed by petitioner Soliman Security Services, was relieved from his post at BPI-Family Bank on March 9, 1995, purportedly upon the client’s request. He was instructed to report for reassignment. Valenzuela filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on April 7, 1995, alleging termination without cause and non-payment of various monetary benefits. He claimed that after the relief order, he reported for reassignment but was placed on a “floating status,” except for a brief one-week assignment. Petitioners countered that the relief was temporary and that Valenzuela had refused a new post, arguing that a 29-day floating status did not constitute constructive dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Valenzuela, finding constructive dismissal and ordering reinstatement with full backwages.
Petitioners appealed to the NLRC. The central procedural dispute arose over the perfection of this appeal. The NLRC’s records showed that petitioners filed their appeal memorandum and a surety bond on October 16, 1998. However, the NLRC, on November 11, 1998, issued an order directing petitioners to submit an affidavit confirming the bond’s genuineness and validity. Petitioners complied on January 19, 1999. The NLRC subsequently reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The Court of Appeals, however, set aside the NLRC decision, ruling that the appeal was not perfected due to the alleged failure to post a valid appeal bond within the reglementary period.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioners failed to perfect their appeal to the NLRC. The secondary issue is whether Valenzuela was constructively dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the NLRC decision. On the procedural issue, the Court held that the appeal was perfected on time. The records, including a certified true copy, confirmed that the appeal bond issued by a reputable surety company was filed alongside the appeal memorandum on October 16, 1998, within the ten-day reglementary period. The NLRC’s own November 11, 1998 order acknowledged that the appeal was “accompanied by a surety bond.” The subsequent requirement for an affidavit was merely a confirmatory measure and did not negate the initial timely compliance. In line with the liberal interpretation of procedural rules in labor cases to resolve disputes on their merits, the posting of the bond substantially complied with Article 223 of the Labor Code.
On the substantive issue, the Court found no constructive dismissal. Placing a security guard on temporary “off-detail” or floating status, a recognized practice in the security industry due to the transient nature of client contracts, is not equivalent to dismissal. The period of 29 days was not unreasonable. Citing Superstar Security Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC, the Court ruled that the complaint was prematurely filed. Constructive dismissal requires a clear act of discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by the employer rendering continued employment intolerable. The temporary off-detail of Valenzuela did not constitute such a case. Therefore, the NLRC correctly ordered the payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement.