In Ravengar G. Ibon v. Genghis Khan Security Services, the Supreme Court ruled that a security guard who remains on floating status for more than six months without a specific reassignment is considered constructively dismissed. This means the employer has created working conditions so unfavorable that the employee is forced to resign. This decision clarifies the rights of security guards and emphasizes the responsibility of security agencies to provide timely reassignments to their employees, thereby upholding the constitutional right to security of tenure.

Lost in Limbo: When Does a Security Guard’s ‘Floating Status’ Become Illegal Dismissal?

Ravengar G. Ibon, a security guard, filed a complaint against Genghis Khan Security Services for illegal dismissal after not being assigned to a new post for more than six months. The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially ruled in Ibon’s favor, finding constructive dismissal, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, a move later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The core legal question was whether Ibon’s prolonged unassigned status constituted constructive dismissal, entitling him to backwages and separation pay. This case highlights the precarious nature of ‘floating status’ often experienced by security guards and the legal safeguards designed to protect their employment.

The Supreme Court addressed whether Ibon was constructively dismissed by Genghis Khan Security Services. The court noted that while temporary off-detail is sometimes permissible, it becomes constructive dismissal when prolonged beyond six months. The Court cited Reyes v. RP Guardians Security Agency, emphasizing that:

Temporary displacement or temporary off-detail of security guard is, generally, allowed in a situation where a security agency’s client decided not to renew their service contract with the agency and no post is available for the relieved security guard. Such situation does not normally result in a constructive dismissal. Nonetheless, when the floating status lasts for more than six (6) months, the employee may be considered to have been constructively dismissed. No less than the Constitution guarantees the right of workers to security of tenure, thus, employees can only be dismissed for just or authorized causes and after they have been afforded the due process of law.

The court emphasized that constructive dismissal occurs when an employer’s actions make continued employment unbearable for the employee, effectively forcing them to resign. This can arise from discrimination, insensitivity, or a demotion in rank and pay, making it impossible or unlikely for the employee to continue working.

In Ibon’s case, the security agency argued that Ibon was suspended for sleeping on the job and that they had sent letters requesting him to return to work. However, the Supreme Court found these arguments unpersuasive. The Court noted the employer’s failure to provide evidence of the suspension and emphasized that the employer must assign the security guard to another specific posting.

The Court referred to Tatel v. JLFP Investigation (JFLP Investigation), which initially found constructive dismissal despite a report-to-work order because the security guard was not given a new assignment. While the ruling was later reversed due to the guard refusing a specific assignment, the court underscored that a general return-to-work order is insufficient. To avoid constructive dismissal, the employer must assign the security guard to a specific client within six months.

The Supreme Court distinguished this case from Exocet Security and Allied Services Corporation v. Serrano (Exocet Security), where the employer was absolved because the security guard refused reassignment to another client. In the present case, Genghis Khan Security Services did not assign Ibon to a particular client within the six-month period. The letters sent to Ibon merely asked him to explain his absence from work, lacking any specific reassignment details. Therefore, the Court held that Genghis Khan Security Services was guilty of constructive dismissal.

Furthermore, the Court stated Ibon’s refusal to accept a reinstatement offer after filing the illegal dismissal case did not validate the constructive dismissal. The dismissal was already consummated, and the belated offer did not absolve the employer.

FAQs

What is ‘floating status’ for a security guard?	‘Floating status’ refers to a temporary period when a security guard is not assigned to a specific post or client, usually due to the termination of a contract or lack of available positions.
How long can a security guard be on ‘floating status’ before it’s considered illegal?	According to Philippine jurisprudence, if a security guard remains on ‘floating status’ for more than six months, it is generally considered constructive dismissal.
What is constructive dismissal?	Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer’s actions, such as creating unfavorable working conditions, force an employee to resign. It is treated as an involuntary termination.
What must an employer do to avoid constructive dismissal when a security guard’s assignment ends?	The employer must make reasonable efforts to reassign the security guard to another specific post or client within six months. A general return-to-work order is not sufficient.
What if the security guard refuses a new assignment?	If the security guard refuses a reasonable reassignment without a valid reason, the employer may not be liable for constructive dismissal. The refusal must be documented.
What kind of evidence should an employer keep to prove they tried to reassign a security guard?	Employers should keep records of communications, such as letters or emails, offering specific reassignments, as well as any documentation of the employee’s refusal and the reasons given.
Can a security guard claim back wages and separation pay if constructively dismissed?	Yes, if a security guard is found to be constructively dismissed, they are typically entitled to back wages from the time of the dismissal until the final judgment, as well as separation pay.
What is the significance of the Ibon v. Genghis Khan case for security guards in the Philippines?	This case reinforces the right of security guards to security of tenure and clarifies the obligations of security agencies to provide timely reassignments, preventing indefinite ‘floating status’.

The Ibon v. Genghis Khan case serves as a crucial reminder of the rights of security guards in the Philippines and the responsibilities of security agencies. It emphasizes the importance of timely reassignments and the legal consequences of prolonged ‘floating status’.

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: Ravengar G. Ibon, vs. Genghis Khan Security Services, G.R. No. 221085, June 19, 2017