GR 213814; (December, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 213814, December 02, 2015
RAFAEL B. QUILLOPA, PETITIONER, VS. QUALITY GUARDS SERVICES AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY AND ISMAEL BASABICA, JR., RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Rafael Quillopa was hired as a security guard by respondent agency QGSIA. On September 28, 2010, he was informed he would be placed on floating status but assured of a new assignment. Despite follow-ups, he received no posting. On November 11, 2010, Quillopa filed a complaint (First Complaint) before the NLRC for various money claims. This case was amicably settled on February 3, 2011, evidenced by a Waiver/Quitclaim where Quillopa received ₱10,000.00 and withdrew his complaint. The Labor Arbiter approved the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Subsequently, on September 14, 2011, Quillopa filed a second complaint (Second Complaint) for illegal dismissal, alleging that after the settlement, respondents still failed to give him a new assignment, leaving him on floating status for nearly a year, which constituted constructive dismissal. Respondents contended the Waiver/Quitclaim had already severed the employer-employee relationship, barring the second complaint. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC ruled in favor of Quillopa, finding constructive dismissal. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the quitclaim precluded the second suit.
ISSUE
Whether the Waiver/Quitclaim and Release executed in settlement of the First Complaint for money claims barred the subsequent filing of the Second Complaint for illegal dismissal.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the NLRC decision, ruling that the quitclaim did not bar the illegal dismissal complaint. The legal logic is twofold. First, the quitclaim pertained solely to the money claims asserted in the First Complaint, which were settled. The cause of action for illegal dismissal in the Second Complaint was distinct and accrued after the settlement, as the constructive dismissal arose from the continued failure to reassign Quillopa beyond the permissible six-month floating period following the execution of the quitclaim. The settlement did not constitute a compromise agreement on the issue of termination of employment.
Second, the Court applied the doctrine that a security guard placed on floating or “off-detail” status for more than six months is deemed constructively dismissed. The allowable period commenced from the last effective date of the quitclaim. Respondents failed to prove that the prolonged inactivity was due to a lack of available posts, a burden they bore. Consequently, their inaction beyond six months constituted an illegal termination. The quitclaim, being limited to pre-existing monetary claims, could not legitimize a subsequent constructive dismissal or waive a right that had not yet accrued. Therefore, Quillopa was illegally dismissed and entitled to backwages and separation pay.