This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-09-16 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| At any rate, even if timely raised, such arguments will not hold. The implementation of the rotation policy by respondent agency is within the ambit of management prerogative. The employer has the inherent right to regulate all aspects of employment, according to his own discretion and judgment, including the right to transfer an employee as long as the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, prejudicial and does not involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of the employee's salaries, benefits, and other privileges.[32] In the absence of evident bad faith or a manifest intent to circumvent the factors and conditions just mentioned, this Court is not prepared to invalidate respondents' stance that this policy reflects the essence of security planning and the importance of discouraging familiarity between security personnel and the premises they are guarding. Thus, we here reiterate that contracts for security services may stipulate that the clients may request the agency for the replacement of the guard/s assigned to it even for want of cause;[33] and that such replaced security guard/s could be placed on temporary "off-detail" or "floating status" which is the period of time when such security guard/s 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.[34] | |||||
|
2015-02-25 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In Superstar Security Agency, Inc. and/or Col. Andrada v. NLRC,[59] the Court ruled that placing an employee on temporary "off-detail" is not equivalent to dismissal provided that such temporary inactivity should continue only for a period of six (6) months.[60] In security agency parlance, being placed "off-detail" or on "floating status" means "waiting to be posted."[61] In Salvaloza v. NLRC,[62] the Court further explained the nature of the "floating status," to wit: Temporary "off-detail" or "floating status" is the 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 contracts with the agency, resulting in a situation where the available posts under its existing contracts are less than the number of guards in its roster. It also happens in instances where contracts for security services stipulate that the client may request the agency for the replacement of the guards assigned to it even for want of cause, such that the replaced security guard may be placed on temporary "off-detail" if there are no available posts under the agency's existing contracts. During such time, the security guard does not receive any salary or any financial assistance provided by law. It does not constitute a dismissal, as the assignments primarily depend on the contracts entered into by the security agencies with third parties, so long as such status does not continue beyond a reasonable time. When such a "floating status" lasts for more than six (6) months, the employee may be considered to have been constructively dismissed.[63] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2014-11-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| When Villareal was relieved from duty, he was placed on floating status. "A floating status requires the dire exigency of the employer's bona fide suspension of operation, business or undertaking."[51] "It takes place when the security agency's clients decide not to renew their contracts with the agency x x x" and also "in instances where contracts for security services stipulate that the client may request the agency for the replacement of the guards assigned to it x x x."[52] In the latter case, the employer should prove that there are no posts available to which the employee temporarily out of work can be assigned.[53] | |||||
|
2013-07-31 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Countering such status, petitioner contends that even at present, he is still not given any new duties. A floating status can ripen into constructive dismissal only when it goes beyond the six-month maximum period allowed by law.[38] In this case, petitioner filed the Complaint for illegal dismissal even before the lapse of the six-month period. Hence, his claim of illegal dismissal lacks basis. Moreover and as aptly observed by the NLRC, it was in fact petitioner who intended to terminate his relationship with respondents through his planned retirement. This is further bolstered by his prayer in his Complaint where he sought for separation pay and not for reinstatement. | |||||
|
2013-02-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Applying Article 286[24] of the Labor Code of the Philippines by analogy, this Court has repeatedly recognized that security guards may be temporarily sidelined by their security agency as their assignments primarily depend on the contracts entered into by the latter with third parties.[25] Temporary "off-detail" or "floating status" is the 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, as here, the security agency's clients decide not to renew their contracts with the agency, resulting in a situation where the available posts under its existing contracts are less than the number of guards in its roster.[26] For as long as such temporary inactivity does not continue for a period exceeding six months, it has been ruled that placing an employee on temporary "off-detail" or "floating status" is not equivalent to dismissal.[27] | |||||
|
2012-06-27 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| An employer has the right to transfer or assign its employees from one office or area of operation to another in pursuit of its legitimate business interest, provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and other privileges; and the transfer is not motivated by discrimination or bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause.[31] | |||||
|
2011-11-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The settled rule in labor cases is that the employer has the burden of proving that the employee was not dismissed, or, if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal, and failure to discharge the same would mean that the dismissal is not justified and, therefore, illegal.[13] In the instant case, what betrays petitioners' claim that private respondent was not dismissed from his employment but instead abandoned his job is their failure to prove that the latter indeed stopped reporting for work without any justifiable cause or a valid leave of absence. Petitioners merely presented the affidavits of their office secretary which narrated their version of the facts. These affidavits, however, are not only insufficient to prove their defense but also undeserving of credence because they are self-serving.[14] | |||||