G.R. No. 198538 September 29, 2014
EXOCET SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES CORPORATION and/or MA. TERESA MARCELO, Petitioner, vs. ARMANDO D. SERRANO, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Exocet Security and Allied Services Corporation (Exocet) is a security agency. Respondent Armando D. Serrano was assigned by Exocet as “close-in” security personnel for a corporate officer of its client, JG Summit Holdings Inc., starting September 24, 1994. On August 15, 2006, Serrano was relieved by JG Summit from his duties. He reported back to Exocet but was not given any reassignment for over six months. On March 15, 2007, Serrano filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Exocet denied dismissal, alleging that after August 15, 2006, Serrano no longer reported for duty and that in September 2006, he demanded a VIP security detail. Exocet claimed it offered him a temporary assignment to general security service, which Serrano declined, insisting on a VIP assignment. The Labor Arbiter ruled Serrano was illegally dismissed, having been placed on floating status for more than six months, constituting constructive dismissal, and awarded separation pay. The NLRC initially modified the award to include backwages but, upon Exocet’s motion for reconsideration, removed the backwages and upheld the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, finding constructive dismissal and ordering payment of separation pay and backwages. Exocet filed the present petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Armando D. Serrano was constructively dismissed.

RULING

No, the Supreme Court ruled that Serrano was not constructively dismissed. The Court explained that placing a security guard on “floating status” or temporary “off-detail” is a form of temporary retrenchment or lay-off due to circumstances generally outside the agency’s control, such as a client not renewing a contract. While there is no specific law on temporary retrenchment, by analogy to Article 292 of the Labor Code, such status should not exceed six months. After six months, the employee should be recalled or permanently retrenched; otherwise, it constitutes dismissal. In this case, Serrano was relieved on August 15, 2006, and filed his complaint on March 15, 2007, exactly seven months later. The six-month period should be counted from August 16, 2006, making the deadline February 15, 2007. His complaint filed on March 15, 2007, was premature, as the six-month period had just lapsed. Furthermore, the Court found that Exocet had offered Serrano an assignment to general security service within the six-month period, which he unjustifiably refused. His refusal constituted willful disobedience of a lawful order, a valid cause for termination under Article 288 of the Labor Code. Therefore, Serrano was not constructively dismissed; his termination was for cause due to his own refusal to accept a lawful reassignment.