Accordingly, GDS Security had until May 25, 2022, to either recall Hilda and Maricel or assign them to new posts. Their continued non-deployment beyond this period thus amounted to constructive dismissal. [27] Although GDS Security submitted the RTW Order dated March 5, 2022, the Labor Arbiter found this insufficient to refute the claim of constructive dismissal. Specifically, the Labor Arbiter observed that GDS Security offered no proof that Hilda actually received any notice instructing her to report for reassignment. While Maricel did receive RTW letters, they arrived after the scheduled reporting dates due to delays attributable to postal delivery rather than her own fault. Furthermore, upon promptly reporting after receiving these delayed notices, Maricel was informed that no assignments were available. GDS Security also failed to substantiate its claim that Hilda had been verbally instructed to report to the office earlier (in February 2022), as no written record of such notice was presented. [28] The Labor Arbiter found persuasive Hilda and Maricel's allegation that GDS Security's corporate adviser intimated that a new assignment was unlikely to materialize, effectively pressuring them to resign. This was construed as indicative of GDS Security's intent to terminate Hilda and Maricel's employment without adhering to due process. Hence, the Labor Arbiter concluded that respondents were illegally and constructively dismissed on May 25, 2022, upon expiration of the six-month floating status period, owing exclusively to GDS Security's failure to reassign them to any client. [29] Further, the Labor Arbiter held that GDS Security violated procedural due process requirements. Hilda and Maricel were not served written notices detailing any formal charges or any decision to terminate their employment. The November 25, 2021 Memorandum, which summarized the investigation results and recommended their relief from duty, lacked proof of proper service to Hilda and Maricel. Although GDS Security produced a copy of this Memorandum marked "refused to sign," no further details were provided regarding who purportedly refused or the circumstances of such refusal. Moreover, no subsequent written termination notice was issued. Consequently, even assuming the existence of a valid cause for dismissal, GDS Security's failure to comply with the mandated twin notice requirement rendered the dismissal procedurally infirm. [30] In view of these determinations, the Labor Arbiter adjudged Hilda and Maricel entitled to the statutory remedies for illegal dismissal, namely reinstatement and full backwages under Article 294 of the Labor Code. However, given Hilda and Maricel's express preference against reinstatement, attributable to strained employer-employee relations and their subsequent employment elsewhere, the Labor Arbiter granted separation pay instead of reinstatement. The separation pay was computed at one month's salary for each year of service rendered. Addition