GR 160940; (July, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160940; July 21, 2008
MEGAFORCE SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC., and RAUL MANALO, Petitioners, vs. HENRY LACTAO and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Megaforce Security hired respondent Henry Lactao as a security guard. On April 4, 2000, Lactao filed a complaint against Megaforce for monetary claims. Subsequently, he was reassigned to a new post. On May 30, 2000, Megaforce issued a Recall Order, relieving Lactao from his assignment effective the next day and directing him to report to the headquarters for a new assignment. Lactao reported from May 31 to June 6, 2000, but was not given any new assignment.
Believing he had been terminated, Lactao amended his complaint to include illegal dismissal. Megaforce denied the charge, alleging Lactao committed various offenses at his previous posts and that he failed to report to the headquarters after his relief. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, but the NLRC reversed, finding constructive dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s ruling.
ISSUE
Whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Lactao was illegally constructively dismissed.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the rulings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, holding that Lactao was constructively dismissed. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that while an employer, particularly a security agency, has the management prerogative to transfer and assign employees, and a temporary “off-detail” or “floating status” is not equivalent to dismissal, such status must not exceed a reasonable period. Jurisprudence establishes that a floating status lasting more than six months constitutes constructive dismissal.
In this case, the Court found that Megaforce’s actions went beyond a mere valid exercise of management prerogative. Lactao was recalled after filing a complaint, and despite reporting for a week, he was not given a new assignment or any notice that he was being placed on floating status. This inaction, coupled with the timing of the recall following his complaint, created a situation where he was effectively eased out of his employment. The failure to provide a new assignment or formal notice of his status within a reasonable time, even before the six-month threshold, under the specific circumstances, amounted to a constructive dismissal without just or authorized cause. The Court also noted that Lactao’s failure to file a comment in the CA did not automatically result in a judgment in favor of Megaforce, as courts can decide cases based on the records.