G.R. No. 194649, August 10, 2016.
SOLIMAN SECURITY SERVICES, INC. AND TERESITA L. SOLIMAN, PETITIONERS, VS. IGMEDIO C. SARMIENTO, JOSE JUN CADA AND ERVIN R. ROBIS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Respondents Igmedio C. Sarmiento, Jose Jun Cada, and Ervin R. Robis were security guards hired by petitioner Soliman Security Services, Inc. and assigned to Interphil Laboratories. They worked seven days a week for twelve hours daily. They alleged underpayment of salaries and non-payment of various benefits (ECOLA, night shift differentials, holiday pay, rest day premiums), and illegal deductions for cash bond and mutual aid contributions. On January 20, 2007, petitioners relieved respondents from their posts, citing a standing contract with the client stipulating the replacement of guards every six months without repeat assignment. Petitioners claimed they placed respondents on “floating status” and directed them to report for new assignments. Respondents, however, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on February 22, 2007, alleging that after their relief, they were not given any new assignments. Petitioners subsequently sent letters in April 2007 directing respondents to report and clarify their intentions, warning of termination for abandonment. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling that respondents’ failure to comply with the memoranda amounted to abandonment. The NLRC reversed this, finding illegal dismissal, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondents were illegally dismissed from their employment.

RULING

Yes, respondents were illegally dismissed. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decisions of the NLRC and Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that while placing security guards on “floating status” or temporary off-detail is a recognized industry practice and a valid management prerogative, it cannot be indefinite. By analogy to Article 292 (formerly 286) of the Labor Code, such status must not exceed six months and requires a bona fide suspension of operations or a surplus of guards over assignments. In this case, the petitioners failed to prove such exigency. The notices sent to respondents in April 2007 were deemed mere afterthoughts, as a complaint for illegal dismissal had already been filed and a hearing conducted. The Court found the offers of reassignment to be empty promises, with no specific details provided. The prolonged failure to reassign respondents beyond the allowable period constituted constructive dismissal. Consequently, petitioners were ordered to pay respondents backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and salary differentials for the unbarred period.