Carique v. Philippine Scout Veterans Security
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Gerardo A. Carique was employed as a security guard by Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. (respondent agency) from November 8, 1990. He was relieved from his last post at National Bookstore - Rosario, Pasig Branch on October 28, 2002, pursuant to the agency's rotation policy. Petitioner subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging that he was not given a new assignment despite reporting for duty and that the respondent agency fabricated subsequent assignment offers to evade liability. The respondents denied the illegal dismissal, asserting that petitioner was placed on a floating status and refused valid offers for new assignments. Procedural History: The petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction, damages, and refund of cash bond before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding him to have been illegally dismissed and ordering the respondent agency to pay separation pay, backwages, and refund the cash bond. Upon appeal by the respondents, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, finding that the petitioner had refused new assignments and was therefore not dismissed. The NLRC ordered the refund of the cash bond. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the NLRC's decision, ruling that the petitioner was placed on floating status and refused new assignments. The CA also denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the NLRC's ruling that the petitioner was not illegally dismissed. The petitioner argues that he was constructively dismissed because the respondent agency's alleged offers of new assignments did not effectively toll the six-month floating period, as the reason for his relief was a rotation policy for regulatory purposes and the offered assignments were temporary reliever positions. The petitioner contends that his 12 years of service and continuous reporting for duty belied any intention to abandon his employment. The core issue presented to this Court is whether the petitioner was illegally dismissed.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Gerardo A. Carique was illegally dismissed from employment. Whether the rotation policy implemented by the respondent agency constitutes a valid management prerogative and whether it tolled the six-month period for floating status. Whether the Special Security Detail (SSD) orders constituted valid offers of assignment, and the nature of these assignments.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It found no cogent reason to depart from the factual findings of the NLRC and CA that petitioner was not illegally dismissed. The Court held that the evidence on record clearly showed that respondents offered petitioner new assignments, as attested to by the SSDs and affidavits of agency officers. The Court reiterated that the employee bears the burden of proving illegal dismissal by substantial evidence, which petitioner failed to do. The Court found that petitioner was relieved due to a rotation policy, placing him on floating status, which is not unusual for security guards and does not amount to dismissal if within six months. Petitioner's refusal of the offered assignments, without justifiable reason, negated his claim of illegal dismissal. Issues raised for the first time on appeal regarding the propriety of the rotation policy and the nature of the offered assignments were not considered.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal dismissal: The Court reiterated that the employee must prove illegal dismissal by substantial evidence, presenting positive and overt acts clearly indicative of a manifest intention to dismiss. Petitioner failed to adduce such evidence. The evidence on record, including SSDs and affidavits, showed that respondent agency offered petitioner new assignments. Petitioner's claim that these SSDs were fabricated was unsubstantiated. The Court found that petitioner was relieved due to a rotation policy, which is a valid management prerogative, placing him on floating status. This floating status, not exceeding six months, does not constitute dismissal. Petitioner's unjustified refusal to accept the offered assignments negated his claim of illegal dismissal. On the validity of the rotation policy and floating status: The Court affirmed that placing petitioner on floating status due to the rotation policy was a valid exercise of management prerogative. This policy is common for security guards, as their assignments depend on contracts with third parties. Floating status for not more than six months is not prohibited by law and does not amount to dismissal. Petitioner had been subjected to this rotation policy since 1992 without objection, thus consenting to it and estopping him from denouncing it as an infraction of his security of tenure. On the nature of the offered assignments: The Court found that the issues regarding the offered assignments being mere "reliever" or temporary positions were raised for the first time on appeal and thus could not be considered. Even if considered, the Court noted that the primary standard for regular employment is the reasonable connection between the employee's activity and the employer's business. The "reliever assignments" were necessary and essential to the usual business of the respondent agency, thus considered regular. Petitioner's repeated refusal of these new assignments was unjustified.
Main Doctrine
A security guard placed on floating status due to a rotation policy, which is a valid management prerogative, is not considered illegally dismissed, especially when offered new assignments which were unjustifiably refused. The burden of proving illegal dismissal rests on the employee, requiring substantial evidence of positive and overt acts indicative of a manifest intention to dismiss.