G.R. No. 206942, December 09, 2015
VICENTE C. TATEL, PETITIONER, VS. JLFP INVESTIGATION AND SECURITY AGENCY, INC., JOSE LUIS F. PAMINTUAN, AND/OR PAOLO C. TURNO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Vicente C. Tatel was hired as a security guard by respondent JLFP Investigation and Security Agency, Inc. on March 14, 1998. He alleged he was last posted at BaggerWerken, worked 12 hours daily, and received a monthly salary of ₱12,400.00. On October 14, 2009, he filed a complaint (underpayment case) against JLFP and its officer, Jose Luis F. Pamintuan, for underpayment of salaries and non-payment of benefits. On October 24, 2009, Tatel was placed on “floating status.” After six months without assignment, he filed another complaint on May 4, 2010 (illegal dismissal case) against JLFP and its officers, including Paolo C. Turno, for illegal dismissal and monetary claims.
Respondents denied dismissal, claiming Tatel was removed from BaggerWerken on August 24, 2009 due to infractions, then reassigned to SKI (September 16 to October 12, 2009) and IPVG (October 21 to 23, 2009). They sent a Memorandum dated November 26, 2009 directing Tatel to report back to work, but he allegedly ignored it and abandoned his work. Respondents also pointed out inconsistencies in Tatel’s sworn statements in his two complaints regarding his hire date, salary, and dismissal date.
Tatel admitted receiving the November 26, 2009 Memorandum on December 11, 2009 and reporting to the JLFP office, but was only told to “wait for possible posting.” He repeatedly returned but received no assignment, denying abandonment.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, citing Tatel’s inconsistent statements. The NLRC reversed, finding Tatel illegally dismissed (actual dismissal on August 24, 2009) and ordering reinstatement, backwages, underpaid wages, cash bond refund, and attorney’s fees. The CA reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion, agreeing that Tatel’s inconsistencies undermined his claim, and holding he abandoned his work by ignoring the recall memorandum.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Vicente C. Tatel was illegally dismissed (constructively dismissed) by respondents.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Tatel to have been constructively dismissed. The Court granted Tatel’s petition, reversing the CA and reinstating the NLRC’s Decision with modification. The Court held that Tatel’s placement on “floating status” for more than six months without being given any assignment constituted constructive dismissal. The defense of abandonment was rejected as respondents failed to prove the two elements: (a) failure to report without justifiable reason, and (b) a clear intention to sever the employment relationship. Tatel’s act of filing the illegal dismissal case shortly after the six-month floating period negated any intention to abandon. His receipt of the November 26, 2009 Memorandum and subsequent reporting to the office, only to be told to wait, demonstrated his desire to work, not abandon. The inconsistencies in his complaints pertained to collateral matters and did not disprove the fact of dismissal. The operative act of dismissal was his being placed on indefinite floating status. Consequently, respondents were ordered to pay Tatel backwages from October 24, 2009 (date of constructive dismissal) until finality of the Decision, computed at ₱12,400.00 per month, along with other monetary awards as decreed by the NLRC.