G.R. No. 194649 - SOLIMAN SECURITY SERVICES, INC. AND TERESITA L. SOLIMAN, VS. IGMEDIO C. SARMIENTO, JOSE JUN CADA AND ERVIN R. ROBIS.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter Fatima Jambaro-Franco dated 4 January 2008 is reversed and set aside and a new one is rendered ordering [petitioners] to pay [respondents] the following: 1. Backwages from 21 January 2007 until finality of this Decision; 2. Separation pay equivalent to one-month salary for every year of service from the date of employment as appearing in the complaint also up to finality of this Decision; and 3. Salary differentials for the period not yet barred by prescription. All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit. [16] Petitioners sought a reconsideration of the decision but the appellate court denied the same. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari . Our Ruling After a careful evaluation of the records of the case, this Court finds no reversible error in the NLRC decision as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The petition is denied for lack of merit. Placement on floating status as a management prerogative The Court is mindful of the fact that most contracts for services stipulate that the client may request the replacement of security guards assigned to it. [17] Indeed, the employer has the right to transfer or assign its employees from one area of operation to another, "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." [18] During that period of time when they are in between assignments or when they are made to wait for new assignments after being relieved from a previous post, guards are considered on temporary "off-detail" or under "floating status". It has long been recognized by this Court that the industry practice of placing security guards on floating status does not constitute dismissal, as the assignments primarily depend on the contracts entered into by the agency with third parties [19] and the same is a valid exercise of management prerogative. However, such practice must be exercised in good faith and courts must be vigilant in assessing the different situations, especially considering that the security guard does not receive any salary or any financial assistance provided by law when placed on floating status. [20] Constructive Dismissal Though respondents were not per se dismissed on 20 January 2007 when they were ordered relieved from their posts, we find that they were constructively dismissed when they were not given new assignments. As previously mentioned, placing security guards under floating status or temporary off-detail has been an established industry practice. It must be emphasized, however, that they cannot be placed under floating status indefinitely; thus, the Court has applied Article 292 [21] (formerly Article 286) of the Labor Code by analogy to set the specific period of temporary off-detail to a maximum of six (6) months. [22] It must also be clari