Case Digest: Nationwide Security and Allied Services v. Valderama

G.R. No. 186614 : February 23, 2011




Respondent was hired by petitioner as security guard. Almost 4 years after, he was relieved from service and was not given any assignment thereafter. He filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and nonpayment of 13th month pay. Petitioner presented a different version. It alleged that respondent was not constructively or illegally dismissed, but had voluntarily resigned.

The LA declared respondent to have been constructively dismissed. On appeal, the NLRC modified the LA decision. It declared that respondent was neither constructively terminated nor did he voluntarily resign. As such, respondent remained an employee of petitioner. The NLRC thus ordered respondent to immediately report to petitioner and assume his duty. The CA set aside the resolutions of the NLRC and reinstated that of the LA. The CA sustained respondent’s claim of constructive dismissal and pointed out that respondent remained on floating status for more than six (6) months, and petitioner offered no credible explanation why it failed to provide a new assignment to respondent

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining respondent’s claim of constructive dismissal.


The petition lacks merit.

LABOR LAW: Floating status

In cases involving security guards, a relief and transfer order in itself does not sever employment relationship between a security guard and his agency. An employee has the right to security of tenure, but this does not give him a vested right to his position as would deprive the company of its prerogative to change his assignment or transfer him where his service, as security guard, will be most beneficial to the client.

Jurisprudence is trite with pronouncements that the temporary inactivity or “floating status” of security guards should continue only for six months. Otherwise, the security agency concerned could be liable for constructive dismissal. In this case, respondent remained on “floating status” for more than six months. He was relieved on January 30, 2006, and was not given a new assignment at the time he filed the complaint on August 2, 2006.

Petition is DENIED.