G.R. No. 197484 September 16, 2015
GERARDO A. CARIQUE, Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE SCOUT VETERANS SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC., and/or RICARDO BONA AND SEVERO SANTIAGO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Gerardo A. Carique was hired as a security guard by respondent Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. on November 8, 1990. On October 28, 2002, he was relieved from his post at National Bookstore – Rosario, Pasig Branch pursuant to a rotation policy. Petitioner reported to the agency’s office inquiring about his next assignment but was informed of a lack of available postings. On March 9, 2003, he received a memorandum requiring him to explain his Absence Without Leave (AWOL) since November 30, 2002. On May 5, 2003, he was compelled to acknowledge receipt of another memorandum dated April 30, 2003, requiring him to explain his unjustified refusal to accept posts offered to him and his AWOL. Attached to this memorandum were three Special Security Details (SSDs) directing him to report for assignment on March 11 and 17, 2003. Petitioner contended these SSDs were fabricated. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on May 6, 2003. Respondents denied dismissal, alleging petitioner was placed on floating status due to the rotation policy and was offered new assignments in March 2003, which he refused, as evidenced by the SSDs and sworn statements of agency officers.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner was NOT illegally dismissed. The Court affirmed the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals that petitioner was placed on floating status or temporary off-detail after his relief, a permissible practice for security guards. The evidence, including the SSDs and affidavits of the agency’s officers, established that respondents offered petitioner new assignments within five months, which he refused. The Court held that placing an employee on floating status for not more than six months is not prohibited and does not amount to dismissal. The burden to prove illegal dismissal rests on the employee, and petitioner failed to provide substantial evidence of any positive act of dismissal by respondents. His claims were based on unproven allegations. The Petition was denied for lack of merit.