G.R. No. 169812 ; February 23, 2007
FEDERITO B. PIDO, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, CHERUBIM SECURITY AND GENERAL SERVICES, INC., AND ROSARIO K. BALAIS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Federito B. Pido was a security guard employed by respondent Cherubim Security and General Services, Inc. On January 21, 2000, he had an altercation with Richard Alcantara of the Ayala Security Force, which operationally supervised the guards. Alcantara filed a complaint for Gross Misconduct. Two days later, petitioner was barred from his post at Ayala Center pursuant to a Recall Order from his employer. Respondent conducted an investigation but rendered no categorical findings for over nine months.
Consequently, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal constructive dismissal, illegal suspension, and various money claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled the prolonged suspension constituted constructive dismissal and awarded separation pay but denied other monetary claims. The NLRC modified this, finding constructive dismissal but ordering only reinstatement without backwages, citing respondent’s offer of a new assignment which petitioner declined. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioner’s prolonged suspension amounted to constructive dismissal entitling him to backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed with modification. It upheld the finding of constructive dismissal. The legal logic is that while security guards may be placed on a temporary “floating status” due to the peculiar nature of the security industry, such status must not exceed six months. Beyond this period, it constitutes constructive dismissal, as the employee is effectively deprived of work without just cause. Here, the nine-month inactivity clearly exceeded this allowable period.
On the remedy, the Court ruled reinstatement with full backwages was appropriate. The NLRC erred in denying backwages simply because petitioner declined a new assignment. The offer of a different post did not cure the illegal dismissal that had already occurred due to the prolonged suspension. The employer’s failure to provide work for an extended period was the operative act of dismissal, not the employee’s subsequent reaction. Furthermore, the Court found no strained relations or other exceptional circumstances to warrant awarding separation pay instead of reinstatement. The order for reinstatement with backwages was thus proper. The case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for computation. The Court also absolved respondent Rosario K. Balais from personal liability, noting no evidence of malice or bad faith in her corporate actions.