GR 210080; (November, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 210080 November 22, 2017
MACARIO S. PADILLA, Petitioner vs. AIRBORNE SECURITY SERVICE, INC. AND/OR CATALINA SOLIS, Respondents
FACTS
Petitioner Macario S. Padilla was hired as a security guard by respondent Airborne Security Service, Inc. in 1986. On June 15, 2009, he was relieved from his post and advised to wait for reassignment. Despite subsequent letters from Airborne directing him to report, Padilla claimed he was told the agency was having difficulty finding him an assignment because he was over 38 years old and was even urged to resign. Having not been redeployed, Padilla filed a complaint for illegal dismissal in February 2010. Respondents countered that Padilla failed to report despite several directives and was thus considered on absence without leave.
The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed Padilla’s complaint, finding he abandoned his work. The Court of Appeals sustained these rulings, concluding Padilla was placed on floating status for only two months (from June 15 to July 27, 2009) and that such temporary off-detail for less than six months does not constitute dismissal. It emphasized that constructive dismissal occurs only when a security guard is not given an assignment beyond the six-month threshold.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner Macario S. Padilla was constructively dismissed from his employment.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Padilla was constructively dismissed. The Court found that the Court of Appeals committed a gross misapprehension of facts. The legal principle is that placing security guards on floating status is a valid management prerogative, but such status must not exceed six months. Beyond this period, it constitutes constructive dismissal. The timeline is crucial: Padilla was relieved on June 15, 2009, and filed his complaint on February 23, 2010—a period exceeding eight months without a valid assignment. The Court rejected the appellate court’s flawed calculation that the floating status lasted only two months, noting that the subsequent letters from the employer did not constitute a genuine offer of reassignment but were instead part of a pretext to pressure him to resign due to his age. The Court held that age, per se, is not a valid ground for denying employment. Consequently, the prolonged floating status beyond the permissible six-month period amounted to illegal constructive dismissal. Padilla was entitled to reinstatement and full backwages.