The Supreme Court has affirmed that security guards placed on prolonged “floating status” exceeding six months can be considered constructively dismissed. This ruling protects security guards from indefinite periods without assignments, ensuring they receive due compensation if their employment is effectively terminated by prolonged inactivity. The decision underscores the employer’s responsibility to actively seek assignments for their security personnel and avoid exploiting the “floating status” as a means of circumventing labor laws.

Security Guard’s Long Wait: Was It a Dismissal in Disguise?

Rafael Quillopa, a security guard employed by Quality Guards Services and Investigation Agency (QGSIA), found himself in an uncertain situation. After being placed on floating status with assurances of a new assignment, he waited for nearly a year without any new posting. This led him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that the prolonged floating status was equivalent to a termination of his employment. The central legal question was whether QGSIA’s failure to provide Quillopa with a new assignment within a reasonable timeframe constituted constructive dismissal, entitling him to separation pay and backwages.

The case hinged on the interpretation of the Waiver/Quitclaim and Release that Quillopa signed after settling an earlier complaint for money claims. The Court clarified that this agreement only covered the specific claims in the first complaint and did not preclude Quillopa from pursuing a subsequent illegal dismissal case. This principle ensures that employees are not inadvertently waiving future rights when settling specific labor disputes. The scope of a waiver is strictly limited to the matters explicitly addressed in the settlement.

Building on this principle, the Court addressed the concept of “floating status” for security guards. While acknowledging that placing a security guard on temporary off-detail is a legitimate exercise of management prerogative, the Court emphasized that this status cannot be indefinite. The Court cited Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Valderama:

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. Temporary off-detail or the period of time security guards are made to wait until they are transferred or assigned to a new post or client does not constitute constructive dismissal, so long as such status does not continue beyond six months.

The onus of proving that there is no post available to which the security guard can be assigned rests on the employer x x x.

This underscores that while employers have the right to manage their workforce, they also have a responsibility to provide work for their employees. The Court highlighted that the employer bears the burden of proving that no suitable posts were available. The failure to do so, combined with the extended duration of the floating status, leads to a finding of constructive dismissal.

The Court then analyzed the timeline of events in Quillopa’s case. From September 28, 2010, when he was placed on floating status, until September 14, 2011, when he filed the illegal dismissal complaint, more than 11 months had elapsed. During this period, Quillopa received no salary or benefits. Despite his efforts to follow up with QGSIA, he was not given a new assignment. This prolonged inactivity, coupled with the lack of evidence from QGSIA demonstrating the unavailability of posts, convinced the Court that Quillopa had been constructively dismissed.

Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer creates working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. In this case, the Court determined that the prolonged floating status, without pay and without a reasonable prospect of reassignment, created such intolerable conditions. This decision reinforces the principle that employers cannot use floating status as a means to effectively terminate employment without providing due process and just compensation.

FAQs

What is “floating status” for security guards?	Floating status refers to a temporary off-detail where a security guard is between assignments, waiting to be transferred to a new post. During this time, they typically do not receive a salary.
How long can a security guard be on “floating status”?	The Supreme Court has ruled that a security guard should not remain on floating status for more than six months. Exceeding this period can be considered constructive dismissal.
What is constructive dismissal?	Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer creates working conditions so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person would feel forced to resign. It is treated as an illegal termination of employment.
Who has the burden of proof in a constructive dismissal case involving floating status?	The employer (security agency) has the burden of proving that there were no available posts to which the security guard could be assigned during the floating status.
What should a security guard do if placed on prolonged floating status?	A security guard should document their attempts to secure a new assignment and, if the floating status exceeds six months, consider filing a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Does signing a quitclaim prevent a security guard from filing an illegal dismissal case?	Not necessarily. A quitclaim only covers the specific claims mentioned in the agreement. It does not prevent an employee from pursuing separate claims, such as illegal dismissal, that arise after the quitclaim is signed.
What remedies are available to a security guard who has been constructively dismissed?	A security guard who has been constructively dismissed may be entitled to backwages (unpaid salary from the time of dismissal until the judgment) and separation pay (compensation for the loss of employment).
Can a security agency avoid liability by claiming lack of available posts?	No. The security agency must provide evidence to support their claim that no suitable posts were available for the security guard.

This case highlights the importance of protecting the rights of security guards who are particularly vulnerable to exploitation due to the nature of their employment. The ruling serves as a reminder to security agencies to act in good faith when placing guards on floating status and to ensure that such status does not become a de facto termination of employment.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Rafael B. Quillopa v. Quality Guards Services and Investigation Agency, G.R. No. 213814, December 02, 2015