G.R. No.

192571, April 22, 2014 Ruling:

Abott Laboratories, Phils. Vs. Alcaraz No.
A probationary employee, like a regular
Facts: employee, enjoys security of tenure. However, in
Abbott Laboratories, Philippines (Abbott) a cases of probationary employment, aside from just
pharmaceutical company is in need of Medical and or authorized causes of termination, an additional
Regulatory Affairs Manager. It caused the ground is provided under Article 295 of the Labor
publication in a major broadsheet newspaper Code. The probationary employee may also be
wherein it included the duties and responsibilities. terminated for failure to qualify as a regular
Alcaraz, who was then a Regulatory Affairs and employee in accordance with the reasonable
Information Manager of another pharmaceutical standards made known by the employer to the
company, showed interest and submitted her employee at the time of the engagement.
application. Thus, the services of an employee who has
In Abbott’s offer sheet, it was stated that been engaged on probationary basis may be
Alcaraz was to be employed on a probationary terminated for any of the following: (a) a just or (b)
basis. Later that day, she accepted the said offer. an authorized cause; and (c) when he fails to
Alcaraz’s underwent pre-employment orientation qualify as a regular employee in accordance with
wherein she was briefed on her duties and reasonable standards prescribed by the employer.
responsibilities as Regulatory Affairs Manager. Abbott clearly conveyed to Alcaraz her
During the course of her employment, duties and responsibilities as Regulatory Affairs
Alcaraz noticed that some of the staff had Manager prior to, during the time of her
disciplinary problems. Thus, she would reprimand engagement, and the incipient stages of her
them for their unprofessional behavior. However, employment. There also are circumstances which
Alcarazs method of management was considered would show that Alcaraz was well-apprised of her
by her immediate supervisor to be "too strict." employers’ expectations that would, in turn,
Alcaraz was called to a meeting with her determine her regularization.
immediate supervisor and former HR Director. She Considering the totality of such
was informed that she failed to meet the circumstances, it cannot be doubted that Alcaraz
regularization standards for the position of was well-aware that her regularization would
Regulatory Affairs Manager. She was then depend on her ability and capacity to fulfill the
terminated. Alcaraz felt that she was unjustly requirements of her position as Regulatory Affairs
terminated from her employment and thus, filed a Manager and that her failure to perform such would
complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against give Abbott a valid cause to terminate her
Abbott and its officers. She claimed that she should probationary employment.
have already been considered as a regular and not
a probationary employee given Abbott’s failure to An employer who terminates an employee for a
inform her of the reasonable standards for her valid cause but does so through invalid
regularization upon her engagement as required procedure is liable to pay the latter nominal
under Article 295of the Labor Code. damages.
LA dismissed Alcaraz’s complaint for lack of
merit. The LA rejected Alcaraz’s argument that she Despite the existence of a sufficient ground
was not informed of the reasonable standards to to terminate Alcarazs employment and Abbott’s
qualify as a regular employee. The NLRC reversed compliance with the Labor Code termination
the findings of the LA and ruled that there was no procedure, it is readily apparent that Abbott
evidence showing that Alcaraz had been apprised breached its contractual obligation to Alcaraz when
of her probationary status and the requirements it failed to abide by its own procedure in evaluating
which she should have complied with in order to be the performance of a probationary employee. In this
a regular employee. case, it is apparent that Abbott failed to follow the
procedure in evaluating Alcaraz.
Issue: The fact that it violated its own company
Whether or not Alcaraz was illegally procedure renders the termination of Alcaraz’s
dismissed.
employment procedurally infirm, warranting the engaged to perform activities which are usually
payment of nominal damages. necessary or desirable in the usual business or
G.R. No. 186439, January 15, 2014 trade of the employer. Primary standard that
Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp. vs. Acibo determines regular employment is the reasonable
connection between the particular activity
Facts: performed by the employee and the usual trade or
Universal Robina is a domestic corporation business of the employer, emphasizing on the
engaged in the sugarcane milling business. Acibo necessity or desirability of the employee’s activity.
and the others are its employees, hired on different Casual employment is when the
dates and in different capacities. engagement lasts at least one year, regardless of
At the start of their employment, they signed continuity. The controlling test is the length of time
one-month period employment contracts or during which the employee is engaged.
seasonal employment contracts. Universal Robina Project employment, on the other hand,
repeatedly hired them to perform the same duties contemplates on arrangement whereby the
and each time required them to sign new employment has been fixed for a specific project or
employment contracts for the same period or undertaking whose completion or termination has
season. been determined at the time of the engagement of
They filed complaints for regularization with the employee. The services of the project
the LA. The LA dismissed their complaints holding employees are legally and automatically terminated
that they were seasonal or project workers and not upon the end or completion of the project as the
regular employees. That they could not be employees’ services are coterminous with the
regularized since their respective employments project.
were coterminous with the phase of the work or Seasonal employment operates much in the
project. same way as project employment, albeit it involves
On appeal, the NLRC declare them regular work or service that is seasonal in nature or lasting
employees. It ruled that the activities they for the duration of the season. To exclude the
performed were usually necessary and desirable in asserted seasonal employee from those classified
the usual trade or business of Universal Robina. as regular employees, the employer must show
Under Article 295 of the Labor Code, they were that: (1) the employee must be performing work
regular employees. or services that are seasonal in nature; and (2)
The CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC. he had been employed for the duration of the
That the repeated and continuing need of their season. Hence, when the seasonal workers are
performance of the same task, regardless of continuously and repeatedly hired to perform the
whether such was continuous or intermittent, same tasks or activities for several seasons or even
constituted sufficient evidence of the after the cessation of the season, this length of time
indispensability of activity to the business. may likewise serve as badge of regular
Universal Robina never gave them opportunity to employment.
work elsewhere during the off-season, which could Respondents perform activities that are
have qualified them as seasonal workers. necessary and desirable in sugarcane production.
Also, they were regularly and repeatedly hired to
Issue: perform the same tasks year after year. This
Whether or not Acido and the others are regular and repeated hiring of the same workers
regular employees. (two different sets) for two separate seasons has
put in place, principally through jurisprudence, the
Ruling: system of regular seasonal employment in the
No. The Supreme Court considered them as sugar industry and other industries with a similar
regular seasonal employees. nature of operations.
Article 295 of the Labor Code provides for 3
kinds of employment arrangements -regular, casual
and project/seasonal.
Regular employment refers to that
arrangement whereby the employee has been
 Conflict ensued. Sambajon subsequently
received his letter of termination which prompted
him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal against
the petitioner.
G.R. No. 196280 and 196286, April 02, 2014 The LA ruled that there was no just or
Unibersidad de Sta. Isabel vs. Sambajon, Jr. authorized cause in the termination of Sambajon’s
probationary employment. The NLRC affirmed LA’s
Facts: decision holding that respondent had acquired a
Universidad de Sta. Isabel is a non-stock, permanent status pursuant to the 1992 Manual of
non-profit religious educational institution in Naga Regulations for Private Schools, in relation to
City. Petitioner hired Marvin-Julian L. Sambajon, Jr. Article 281 of the Labor Code.
as a full-time college faculty member with the rank The CA sustained the conclusion of the
of Assistant Professor on probationary status. NLRC that respondent had already acquired
Even after the contract expired, petitioner permanent status when he was allowed to continue
continued to give teaching loads to Sambajon, who teaching after the expiration of his first
remained a full-time faculty member of the appointment-contract.
Department of Religious Education for two
semesters for two school-years. Issue:
Sambajon completed his course in Master Whether or not Sambajon is a regular
of Arts in Education. He submitted the employee.
corresponding Special Order from the CHED,
together with his credentials for the said master’s Ruling:
degree, to the Human Resources Department of No.
petitioner for the purpose of salary The probationary employment of teachers in
adjustment/increase. Subsequently, respondent’s private schools is not governed purely by the Article
salary was increased starting October of 2004 and 281 of the Labor Code. The Labor Code is
he was re-ranked from Assistant Professor to supplemented with respect to the period of
Associate Professor. probation by special rules found in the Manual of
In a letter addressed to the President of the Regulations for Private Schools.
petitioner, Sambajon vigorously argued that his On the matter of probationary period,
salary increase should be made effective as of Section 92 of the 1992 Manual of Regulations for
June 2003 and demanded the payment of his Private Schools regulations states:
salary differential. “Subject in all instances to compliance with
The school administration replied by the Department and school requirements, the
explaining its policy on re-ranking of faculty probationary period for academic personnel shall
members. The Faculty Manual provides Re-ranking not be more than three (3) consecutive years of
is done every two years; hence the personnel hold satisfactory service for those in the elementary and
their present rank for two years. Those undergoing secondary levels, six (6) consecutive regular
probationary period and those on part-time basis of semesters of satisfactory service for those in the
employment are not covered by this provision. That tertiary level, and nine (9) consecutive trimesters of
teachers in the Universidad are not re-ranked satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level
during their probationary period. where collegiate courses are offered on a trimester
Respondent insisted on his demand for basis.”
retroactive pay. Petitioner reiterated the school Thus, it is the Manual of Regulations for
policy on re-ranking of teachers. However, Private Schools, and not the Labor Code, that
respondent found the above explanation insufficient determines whether or not a faculty member in an
and not clear enough. He pointed out the case of educational institution has attained regular or
another faculty member also on probationary status permanent status.
whose salary was supposedly adjusted by
petitioner at the start of school year (June) after Issue:
completing master’s degree in March. Whether or not Sambajon was illegally
dismissed.
Ruling:
YES, notwithstanding the limited
engagement of probationary employees, they are
entitled to constitutional protection of security of
tenure during and before the end of the
probationary period.
The services of an employee who has been
engaged on probationary basis may be terminated
for any of the following: (a) a just or (b) an
authorized cause; and (c) when he fails to qualify
as a regular employee in accordance with
reasonable standards prescribed by the employer.
Thus, while no vested right to a permanent
appointment had as yet accrued in favor of
respondent since he had not completed the
prerequisite three-year period (six consecutive
semesters) necessary for the acquisition of
permanent status as required by the Manual of
Regulations for Private Schools-- which has the
force of law -- he enjoys a limited tenure. During the
said probationary period, he cannot be terminated
except for just or authorized causes, or if he fails to
qualify in accordance with reasonable standards
prescribed by petitioner for the acquisition of
permanent status of its teaching personnel.
 Ruling:
Yes.
Once a project or work pool employee has
been: (1) continuously, as opposed to intermittently,
rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or
G.R. No. 204406, February 26, 2014 nature of tasks; and (2) these tasks are vital,
Malicdem vs. Marulas Industrial Corp. necessary and indispensable to the usual business
or trade of the employer, then the employee must
Facts: be deemed a regular employee, pursuant to Article
Malicdem and Flores were hired by 280 of the Labor Code.
respondent corporation as extruder operators in The test to determine whether employment
2006 They were responsible for the bagging of is regular or not is the reasonable connection
filament yarn, the quality of pp yarn package and between the particular activity performed by the
the cleanliness of the work place area. employee in relation to the usual business or trade
Their employment contracts were for a of the employer. If the employee has been
period of one (1) year. Every year thereafter, they performing the job for at least one year, even if the
would sign a Resignation/Quitclaim in favor of performance is not continuous or merely
Marulas a day after their contracts ended, and then intermittent, the law deems the repeated and
sign another contract for one (1) year until such continuing need for its performance as sufficient
time that they were told not to report to work evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of
anymore. that activity to the business.
They were asked to sign a paper It is clear then that there was deliberate
acknowledging the completion of their contractual intent on the part of the employer to prevent the
status. Claiming that they were illegally dismissed, regularization of petitioners. To begin with, there is
the corporation countered that their contracts no actual project. The only stipulations in the
showed that they were fixedterm employees for a contracts were the dates of their effectivity, the
specific undertaking which was to work on a duties and responsibilities of the petitioners as
particular order of a customer for a specific period. extruder operators, the rights and obligations of the
Their severance from employment then was due to parties, and the petitioners’ compensation and
the expiration of their contracts. allowances. As there was no specific project or
The LA rendered a decision in favor of undertaking to speak of, the respondents cannot
Marulas ruling that Malicdem and Flores were not invoke the exception in Article 280 of the Labor
terminated and that their employment naturally Code.This is a clear attempt to frustrate the
ceased when their contracts expired. The NLRC regularization of the petitioners and to circumvent
partially granted the appeal. the law.
However, the CA denied the petition. It ruled Even granting that petitioners were project
that the issue of whether or not petitioners were employees; they can still be considered as regular
project employees or regular employees was as they were continuously hired by the same
factual in nature. On the substantive issue, the CA employer for the same position as extruder
explained that “the repeated and successive operators. Being responsible for the operation of
rehiring of project employees do not qualify them as machines that produced sacks, their work was vital
regular employees, as the length of service is not and indispensable the business of the employer.
the controlling determinant of the employment The respondents cannot use the alleged
tenure of a project employee, but whether the expiration of the employment contracts of the
employment has been fixed for a specific reason or petitioners as a shield of their illegal acts. The
undertaking, its completion has been determined at project employment contracts that the petitioners
the time of the engagement of the employee. were made to sign every year since the start of
their employment were only a stratagem to violate
Issue: their security of tenure in the company.
Whether or not Malicdem and Flores were
illegally dismissed.
 Whether or not Noblejas is a regular
employee.

Ruling:
Yes. In the case at bench, Noblejas was
employed by IMAPI as a training
instructor/assessor for a period of three (3) months.
G. R. No. 207888, June 9, 2014 After the end of the 3-month period, he was rehired
Noblejas vs. Italian Maritime Academy Phils. by IMAPI for the same position and continued to
work as such.
Facts: There is no dispute that the work of
Italian Maritime was a training center for Noblejas was necessary or desirable in the
seamen and an assessment center for business or trade of IMAPI, a training and
determination of the qualifications and competency assessment center for seamen and officers of
of seamen and officers for possible promotion. vessels. Moreover, such continuing need for his
Italian Maritime President, wrote a Letter to services is sufficient evidence of the necessity and
Noblejas informing him that he had been appointed indispensability of his services to IMAPI’s business.
as training instructor/assessor of the company on a Taken in this light, Noblejas had indeed
contractual basis for a period of three (3) months. attained the status of a regular employee at the
After the expiration of the 3-month period, Italian time he ceased to report for work.
Maritime hired Noblejas again but no written
contract was drawn for his rehiring. Issue:
The absence of a written contract to cover Whether or not Noblejas was illegally
the renewal of his employment became Noblejas’ dismissed.
major concern. To address all his apprehensions,
he wrote a letter requesting that a new contract be Ruling:
executed to reflect the following provisions that they Fair evidentiary rule dictates that before
had allegedly agreed upon. Likewise, in the same employers are burdened to prove that they did not
letter, Noblejas intimated that he was electing to commit illegal dismissal, it is incumbent upon the
continue working for the company as its regular employee to first establish by substantial evidence
instructor. the fact of his or her dismissal.
Noblejas averred that the company did not Aside from his mere assertion, no
act on his letter-request, so he sought an audience corroborative and competent evidence was
with the President. During the meeting, an adduced by Noblejas to substantiate his claim that
altercation between them ensued. After such he was dismissed from employment. The record is
incident, he was dimissed. bereft of any indication that he was prevented from
The LA declared Noblejas to be illegally returning to work or otherwise deprived of any work
dismissed and concluded that he was a regular assignment. It is also noted that no evidence was
employee. The NLRC reversed the LA decision. submitted to show that respondent Ferrez, the
The NLRC explained that there was no showing secretary of Capt. Terrei, was actually authorized
that respondents committed any positive and overt by IMAPI to terminate the employment of the
act of dismissal and that the claim of Noblejas that company’s employees or that Ferrez was indeed
the President ordered his secretary to terminate his instructed by Capt. Terrei to dismiss him from
employment was not substantiated. According to employment.
the NLRC, it was Noblejas who severed his The Court finds it odd that, instead of
employment. On appeal, the CA upheld the findings clarifying from Capt. Terrei what he heard from
of the NLRC that Noblejas was a contractual Ferrez, Noblejas immediately instituted an illegal
employee of IMAPI and that there was no evidence dismissal case against the respondents the day
to prove that he was dismissed from employment. following the alleged incident and never reported
back for work since then. Complainant’s allegation
Issue: that he was dismissed from employment cannot be
accorded credence for it is obvious that being
unhappy with not being granted his demands, it
was he himself who is no longer interested to
continue his employment with respondent
company.
Respondents’ refusal to grant complainant’s
demands does not constitute an overt act of
dismissal. On the contrary, it is rather the apparent
disinterest of complainant to continue his
employment with respondent company that may be
considered a covert act that severed his G.R. No. 209559, December 9, 2015
employment when the latter did not grant the litany Enchanted Kingdom, Inc. vs. Verzo
of his demands.
Facts:
Miguel J. Verzo was hired by petitioner
Enchanted Kingdom, Inc. to work as section head-
mechanical and instrumentation maintenance for its
theme park in Laguna for a period of six months on
probationary status. He was provided with a
detailed list of responsibilities that he should fulfil.
During the probationary period, Enchanted
assessed Verzo’s performance as not up to par. He
was recommended by his immediate supervisor
that he should not be considered for regularization.
Enchanted furnished Verzo a copy of the
cast member performance appraisal for
regularization, which reported that he only obtained
a score of 70 out of 100. Enchanted formally
informed Verzo that he did not qualify for
regularization because his work performance for
the past five months did not meet the requirements
of his position.
Verzo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against Enchanted.

Issue:
Whether or not Verzo is deemed to be a
regular employee.

Ruling:
No. Book VI of the Implementing Rules of
the Labor Code provides that if the employer fails to
inform the probationary employee of the reasonable
standards on which his regularization would be
based at the time of the engagement, then the said
employee shall be deemed a regular employee,
Thus: (d) In all cases of probationary employment,
the employer shall make known to the employee
the standards under which he will qualify as a
regular employee at the time of his engagement.
Where no standards are made known to the
employee at that time, he shall be deemed a
regular employee.
 When dealing with a probationary
employee, the employer is made to comply with two
(2) requirements: first, the employer must
communicate the regularization standards to the
probationary employee; and second, the employer
must make such communication at the time of the
probationary employee’s engagement. If the
employer fails to comply with either, the employee
is deemed as a regular and not a probationary
employee.
In the case at bench, the evidence is clear
that when Verzo was first hired by Enchanted, he
was placed on a probationary status. The letter,
clearly reflects not only the agreement of both
parties as to the probationary status of the
employment and its duration, but also the fact that
Enchanted informed Verzo of the standards for his
regularization.
“As Section Head for Mechanical &
Instrumentation Maintenance, you shall be
responsible for mechanical and structural system
assessments and inspection to evaluate conditions,
operations and maintenance requirements of rides,
facilities and buildings to ensure compliance with
applicable codes, regulations and standards.
Please see attach Job Description for the details of
your responsibilities.”
Clearly, Enchanted informed Verzo that he
was being placed on probation. Aside from the
probationary nature of his employment, the
agreement of the parties specifically showed: the
duration of such status; the benefits to which he
was entitled once regularized; and most
importantly, the standard with which he must
comply in order to be regularized.
 Ruling:
Yes, Arlene is a regular employee with a
fixed term contract.
Fuji’s Manila Bureau Office is a small
unit213 and has a few employees. Arlene had to do
all activities related to news gathering.
The successive renewals of her contract
indicated the necessity and desirability of her work
in the usual course of Fuji’s business. Because of
this, Arlene had become a regular employee with
G.R. Nos. 204944-45, December 3, 2014
the right to security of tenure.
Fuji Television Network, Inc. vs. Espiritu
Arlene’s contract indicating a fixed term did
not automatically mean that she could never be a
Facts:
regular employee. For as long as it was the
Arlene S. Espiritu (Arlene) was engaged by
employee who requested, or bargained, that the
Fuji Television Network, Inc. (Fuji) as a news
contract have a “definite date of termination,” or
correspondent/producer tasked to report Philippine
that the fixed-term contract be freely entered into by
news to Fuji through its Manila Bureau field office.
the employer and the employee, then the validity of
The employment contract was initially for one year,
the fixed-term contract will be upheld.
but was successively renewed on a yearly basis
with salary adjustments upon every renewal.
1.
Arlene was diagnosed with lung cancer.
Fuji alleged that Arlene was an independent
She informed Fuji about her condition, and the
contractor citing the Sonza case. She was hired
Chief of News Agency of Fuji informed her that the
because of her skills. Her salary was higher than
company had a problem with renewing her contract
the normal rate. She had the power to bargain with
considering her condition. Arlene insisted she was
her employer. Her contract was for a fixed term. It
still fit to work as certified by her attending
also stated that Arlene was not forced to sign the
physician.
non-renewal agreement, considering that she sent
After a series of verbal and written
an email with another version of her non-renewal
communications, Arlene and Fuji signed a non-
agreement.
renewal contract. In consideration thereof, Arlene
Arlene argued (1) that she was a regular
acknowledged the receipt of the total amount of her
employee because Fuji had control and supervision
salary from March-May 2009 along with bonuses
over her work; (2) that she based her work on
and separation pay. However, Arlene executed the
instructions from Fuji; (3) that the successive
non-renewal contract under protest.
renewal of her contracts for four years indicated
Arlene filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
that her work was necessary and desirable; (4) that
with the NLRC alleging that she was forced to sign
the payment of separation pay indicated that she
the non-renewal contract after Fuji came to know of
was a regular employee; (5) that the Sonza case is
her illness. She also alleged that Fuji withheld her
not applicable because she was a plain reporter for
salaries and other benefits when she refused to
Fuji; (6) that her illness was not a ground for her
sign, and that she was left with no other recourse
dismissal; (7) that she signed the non-renewal
but to sign the non-renewal contract to get her
agreement because she was not in a position to
salaries.
reject the same.
Issues:
Whether or not Arlene is a regular
employee with a fixed term contract.

1. Was Arlene an independent contractor?

2. Was Arlene a regular employee?
3. Was Arlene illegally dismissed? (discussion
on security of tenure)
 Consequently, in order to safeguard the
rights of workers against the arbitrary use of the
word "project" to prevent them from attaining
regular status, employers claiming that their
workers are project employees should prove that:
(a) the duration and scope of the employment was
specified at the time they were engaged; and (b)
there was indeed a project.
In this case, Milenium was able to prove
that Dacles was a project employee:
1. Dacles was adequately informed of his
G.R. No. 209822, July 8, 2015 employment status, as shown by his employment
Dacles vs. Millennium Erectors Corp. contract, stating that (a) he was hired as a project
employee; and (b) his employment was for the
Facts: indicated starting dates therein "and will end on
Dacles was hired by Millenium as a mason completion/phase of work of project.
in 1998. In June of 2010, while he was working on 2. Millenium submitted “Establishment
a project in Quezon City, he was advised by Employment Reports” to DOLE regarding the
respondent's officer to move to another project in permanent termination of Dacles from its projects in
Robinson's Cubao, QC. accordance with DO 19 (Guidelines Governing the
However, upon arrival at the site, he was Employment of Workers in the Construction
instructed to return to his former job site and, Industry.”
thereafter, was given a run-around for the two (2) 3. There was no proof that he has been
succeeding days. When he requested to be given a repeatedly rehired for 22 years.
post or assigned to a new project, he was told by At any rate, the repeated and successive
the paymaster not to report for work anymore, rehiring of project employees does not, by and of
prompting him to file a complaint for illegal itself, qualify them as regular employees. Case law
dismissal. states that length of service (through rehiring) is not
As a defense, Millenial claimed that Dacles’ the controlling determinant of the employment
employment as project employee was terminated in tenure, but whether the employment has been fixed
June of 2010 upon the completion of this masonry for a specific project or undertaking, with its
work assignment in their RCB-Malakas Project. He completion having been determined at the time of
has been previously hired as a project employee for the engagement of the employee.
its NECC Project, which expired in March of 2010. While generally, length of service provides
a fair yardstick for determining when an employee
Issue: initially hired on a temporary basis becomes a
Whether or not Dacles was a project permanent one, entitled to the security and benefits
employee. of regularization, this standard will not be fair, if
applied to the construction industry because
Ruling: construction firms cannot guarantee work and
YES. For an employee to be considered funding for its payrolls beyond the life of each
project-based, the employer must show that: (a) the project as they have no control over the decisions
employee was assigned to carry out a specific and resources of project proponents or owners.
project or undertaking; and (b) the duration and
scope of which were specified at the time the
employee was engaged for such project.
Being assigned to a project or a phase
thereof which begins and ends at determined or
determinable times, the services of project
employees may be lawfully terminated at the
completion of such project or phase.
 Ruling:
No, Exocet Security and Allied Services
Corporation is neither guilty of illegal dismissal nor
constructive dismissal.
The “floating status” or temporary “off-detail”
of security guards employed by private security
agencies is a form of temporary retrenchment or
lay-off. The concept has been defined as that
period of time when security guards are in between
assignments or when they are made to wait after
being relieved from a previous post until they are
transferred to a new one. It takes place when the
security agency’s clients decide not to renew their
G.R. No. 198538, September 29, 2014 contracts with the agency, resulting in a situation
Exocet Security and Allied Services where the available posts under its existing
Corporation vs. Marcelo contracts are less than the number of guards in its
roster. It also happens in instances where contracts
Facts: for security services stipulate that the client may
Exocet Security and Allied Services request the agency for the replacement of the
Corporation is engaged in the provision of security guards assigned to it, even for want of cause, such
personnel to its various clients or principals. By that the replaced security guard may be placed on
virtue of its contract with JG Summit Holdings Inc., temporary “off-detail” if there are no available posts
Exocet assigned respondent Serrano on as “close- under the agency’s existing contracts.
in” security personnel for one of JG Summit’s As the circumstance is generally outside
corporate officers, first for Johnson Robert Go and the control of the security agency or the employer,
after eight years, he was re-assigned as close-in the Court has ruled that when a security guard is
security for Lance Gokongwei and then to placed on a “floating status,” he or she does not
Gokongwei’s wife. receive any salary or financial benefit provided by
Serrano was relieved by JG Summit from law.
his duties. For more than six months after he
reported back to Exocet, Serrano was without any
reassignment. Serrano filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against Exocet with the NLRC.
Exocet denied dismissing Serrano alleging
that, Serrano no longer reported for duty
assignment as VIP security for JG Summit, and that
he was demanding for VIP Security detail to
another client. However, since Exocet did not have
clients in need of VIP security assignment, Serrano
was temporarily assigned to general security
service.
Exocet maintained that it was Serrano who
declined the assignment on the ground that he is
not used to being a regular security guard. Serrano,
Exocet added, even refused to report for immediate
duty, as he was not given a VIP security
assignment.

Issue:
Whether or not Serrano was constructively
dismissed.