Megaforce Security v. Lactao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Henry Lactao (Lactao) was hired as a security guard by Megaforce Security and Allied Services, Inc. (Megaforce) on April 28, 1998. On April 4, 2000, Lactao filed a complaint for underpayment of wages, non-payment of overtime pay, service incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay. On May 3, 2000, he was reassigned. On May 30, 2000, Megaforce issued a Recall Order for Lactao, directing him to report to Headquarters for disposition and new assignment, effective May 31, 2000. From May 31 to June 6, 2000, Lactao reported but was not given a new assignment. Believing he was terminated, Lactao amended his complaint to one for illegal dismissal. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) set aside the LA's decision, ruling that Lactao was constructively dismissed due to the failure to provide a new assignment, ordering reinstatement and backwages. Megaforce's motion for reconsideration was denied. Megaforce filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition, affirming the NLRC's finding of constructive dismissal, holding that Megaforce failed to give Lactao notice of being placed on 'floating status' and that its inaction gave the impression of being eased out. Megaforce's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Megaforce filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, contending that Lactao was merely recalled and that a seven-day period without a new assignment does not constitute constructive dismissal, as security guards can be placed on 'floating status' for up to six months. They also argued Lactao never reported back for reassignment and that the CA erred in ruling in Lactao's favor despite his failure to file a comment.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure to provide a new assignment to a security guard within a reasonable time of recall constitutes constructive dismissal. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling in favor of the respondent despite his failure to file a comment and memorandum.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. The case is remanded to the Labor Arbiter for computation of backwages and benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of constructive dismissal: The Court reiterated that while a relief and transfer order for a security guard does not automatically sever employment, and temporary 'off-detail' or 'floating status' is recognized, this status must not continue beyond a reasonable time. The Court has consistently held that a 'floating status' lasting more than six months may be considered constructive dismissal. In this case, while the initial seven-day period might have been premature for a claim of illegal dismissal, Megaforce's continued failure to offer Lactao a new assignment, even during the proceedings before the LA and beyond the reasonable six-month period, rendered the 'off-detail' permanent, thus constituting constructive dismissal. The Court rejected Megaforce's contention of abandonment, noting the lack of credible proof and the settled doctrine that filing a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with abandonment. On the issue of the CA ruling despite failure to file comment: The Court clarified that the non-submission of a comment and memorandum by a respondent does not automatically lead to a ruling in favor of the petitioner. Section 8, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court allows the court to decide the case based on the petition and its attachments if the respondent fails to file the required pleadings. The CA's decision was based on the merits of the petition and the records before it, finding that the allegations supported constructive dismissal.
Main Doctrine
While a temporary 'off-detail' or 'floating status' for security guards does not automatically constitute constructive dismissal, such status continuing beyond a reasonable period, particularly exceeding six months, can be considered constructive dismissal, especially when the employer fails to provide a new assignment or demonstrate efforts towards reinstatement.