GR 239396; (June, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 239396, June 23, 2020
MARK E. SAMILLANO, PETITIONER, VS. VALDEZ SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC. / EMMA V. LICUANAN, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Mark E. Samillano was hired as a security guard by respondent Valdez Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. on August 17, 2008, assigned to Mornesse Center of Spirituality in Calamba, Laguna. On December 3, 2013, petitioner was relieved from his post upon the request of the client, Mornesse, after he and a co-security guard impleaded Mornesse in a complaint for money claims against the respondent agency. A Relieve Order was served on petitioner on December 3, 2013, instructing him to report to the agency’s head office on December 5, 2013, for reassignment. Petitioner refused to sign and accept the Relieve Order. He did not report to the head office as instructed. On September 17, 2014, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed the complaint, ruling he was not dismissed but was merely relieved from his post due to the client’s request and that he abandoned his work. The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the ruling, finding he was dismissed for just cause (gross neglect/abandonment) but without due process, awarding him nominal damages. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that there was just cause for petitioner’s termination from employment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that petitioner was not dismissed from service. His relief from his post due to a client’s request constituted being placed on temporary “off-detail” or floating status, a valid exercise of management prerogative in the security agency industry, and not dismissal. The Court found no substantial evidence to prove he abandoned his work, as abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, which was not established. The fact that he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal negated the claim of abandonment. However, since his failure to work was not due to dismissal or abandonment, the proper remedy was reinstatement without payment of backwages. The respondents were ordered to reinstate petitioner to his former position without backwages.