G.R. No. 245422 , July 07, 2020
ALLAN M. ADOR, PETITIONER, VS. JAMILA AND COMPANY SECURITY SERVICES, INC., SERGIO JAMILA III AND EDDIMAR O. ARCENA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Allan M. Ador was hired as a security guard by respondent Jamila and Company Security Services, Inc. on May 27, 2010. After being involved in a brawling incident with a co-employee, he was not given posting assignments from April 2012 to April 2013. On June 11, 2013, he requested a new assignment and was instructed by HR Manager Eddimar Arcena to first renew his security guard license and clearances as required by Republic Act No. 5487 (Private Security Agency Law). Petitioner failed to comply, citing lack of money. Respondents sent him three notices (dated June 29, July 31, and August 31, 2013) directing him to report for work and explain his non-compliance, which he received belatedly. Petitioner reported to the office after receiving each notice but was not given an assignment. On September 18, 2013, he submitted a written explanation for his non-renewal. Subsequently, he received a Memorandum dated September 31, 2013, terminating his employment for insubordination. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, finding illegal dismissal and awarding separation pay and backwages. The NLRC reversed, dismissing the complaint but awarding separation pay on the ground of constructive dismissal due to a one-year “floating status.” The Court of Appeals further reversed the NLRC, ruling that petitioner was neither illegally nor constructively dismissed, and ordered respondents to find him an assignment within 30 days or terminate him following Department Order No. 14, Series of 2001.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that petitioner was neither illegally nor constructively dismissed?

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision. Petitioner was not illegally dismissed because his termination was for a just cause—insubordination due to his failure to renew his mandatory security guard license and clearances, which rendered him unqualified for posting under RA 5487. He was afforded procedural due process as he was given several notices and an opportunity to explain. He was also not constructively dismissed. While he was on “floating status” for over six months (from May 12, 2012, to April 11, 2013), this was justified by the unavailability of posts and his own infractions. Constructive dismissal requires a clear act of discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by the employer, which was not present here. The employer demonstrated good faith by repeatedly notifying him to renew his documents and return to work. The Court ordered that respondents must find an assignment for petitioner within 30 days from finality of judgment. If an assignment is available and petitioner fails to report, he shall be deemed to have abandoned his job. If no assignment is available, respondents must serve a written notice of termination one month prior and pay separation pay equivalent to half-month pay per year of service.