Ador vs. Jamila and Company Security Services, Inc.

A security guard placed on “floating status" for more than six months without a valid justification is constructively dismissed; a subsequent termination for insubordination based on non-compliance with vague return-to-work orders that lack the specific details required by DOLE Department Order No. 14-01, and that were served belatedly, is illegal.

Allan M. Ador was employed as a security guard by Jamila and Company Security Services, Inc. from May 27, 2010. After being involved in a fistfight with a co‑employee, he was removed from regular posting and placed on temporary off‑detail (floating status) beginning May 12, 2012. The security agency repeatedly demanded that he renew his security guard license and clearances before he could be given a new assignment. When Ador failed to comply, he was served three notices to report for work and subsequently received a memorandum terminating his employment for insubordination, effective September 31, 2013. Ador filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and various monetary benefits.

• Employment and floating status: Jamila and Company Security Services, Inc. hired petitioner Allan M. Ador as a security guard on May 27, 2010. After a fistfight with a co‑employee at Hyatt Hotel and Casino, the agency stopped giving him regular posting assignments. From May 12, 2012 onward, Ador was placed on temporary off‑detail or “floating status” and received only occasional augmentation assignments until September 2012.
• Demand to renew documents: When Ador reported for work on December 17, 2012, respondents directed him to renew his security guard license, barangay clearance, police clearance, NBI clearance, court clearance, and undergo a neurological test before any regular assignment could be given. Ador did not comply despite reporting again on February 6, 2013 and April 11, 2013, claiming he lacked the funds to process the documents because he was not receiving a salary.
• Agency’s notices: Between June and August 2013, respondents issued three memoranda: a 1st Notice to Report dated June 29, 2013, a 2nd Notice dated July 31, 2013 directing Ador to explain why he should not be charged with insubordination, and a 3rd and Final Notice dated August 31, 2013 warning that failure to report would be deemed a waiver of his right to be heard and could result in termination for insubordination. All three notices were sent by registered mail and were received by Ador only on August 23, 2013, September 6, 2013, and October 4, 2013, respectively. The notices lacked any specific description of the posting assignment; they merely instructed Ador to report to the main office.
• Ador’s response and termination: Ador went to the office after receiving the first two notices. On September 18, 2013, he submitted a written explanation stating he could not renew his documents because he had no money. Nevertheless, respondents issued a Memorandum – Re: Notice of Termination dated September 31, 2013 (a possible typographical error for September 30), terminating his employment for insubordination.
• Validity of license: Ador presented a Certification from the DILG-National Police Commission’s Civil Security Group dated March 29, 2012, showing that his security guard license was valid until March 29, 2015. Thus, his license had not expired at the time the agency demanded renewal.
• Proceedings below: The Labor Arbiter found illegal dismissal for lack of just cause and denial of procedural due process (a single notice of termination). The NLRC reversed the finding of illegal dismissal but ruled that Ador was constructively dismissed because his floating status lasted from May 12, 2012 to April 11, 2013, exceeding six months. It awarded separation pay of one‑half month salary per year of service and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals held that Ador was neither illegally nor constructively dismissed; it found no bad faith, noted that the agency offered him to return to work within the six‑month period, and blamed Ador for failing to renew his documents. The CA ordered the agency to look for a security assignment within 30 days or, if none was available, to comply with the notice and separation pay requirements of DOLE Department Order No. 14-01.

• Illegal dismissal: Petitioner argued that respondents terminated his employment without a just or authorized cause and in disregard of the two‑notice rule.
• Afterthought recall: Petitioner maintained that the security agency’s sudden retraction of the termination notice during the arbitration conference was a mere afterthought and could not cure the earlier illegal dismissal.
• Monetary claims: Petitioner asserted that he was entitled to full backwages, separation pay, and all unpaid statutory benefits as an illegally dismissed employee.

• No illegal dismissal; floating status caused by employee’s fault: Respondents countered that petitioner was not given a new assignment because he failed to renew his security guard license and clearances as required under Republic Act No. 5487, and that this failure was a valid ground to withhold posting.
• Due process observed: Respondents argued that petitioner was repeatedly notified that he could be terminated if he did not update his employment documents, and that he was afforded procedural due process because he actually submitted a written explanation on September 18, 2013.
• Employee’s refusal to comply: Respondents claimed that petitioner ignored directives to report for work and instead initiated the complaint for illegal dismissal, despite being told at the arbitration conference that he could disregard the termination letter and simply submit the updated requirements.

• Constructive dismissal: Whether petitioner was constructively dismissed when his floating status lasted from May 12, 2012 to April 11, 2013, exceeding the six‑month maximum allowed by law, and when the security agency’s proffered justification—expiration of his security guard license—was false.
• Insubordination: Whether the subsequent termination for insubordination was valid, considering that the return‑to‑work orders lacked the specific details required by DOLE Department Order No. 14‑01 and were served belatedly.
• Monetary awards: Whether petitioner was entitled to backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and attorney’s fees as a consequence of constructive dismissal.

• Constructive dismissal: Petitioner was constructively dismissed. His floating status from May 12, 2012 to April 11, 2013 lasted almost one year, far exceeding the six‑month maximum allowed under Article 292 of the Labor Code and established jurisprudence. The security agency’s claim that his security guard license had expired was disproved by a certification showing the license was valid until March 29, 2015. The agency therefore lacked any valid justification for keeping him on floating status beyond six months. Having been constructively dismissed long before the notice of termination, the subsequent actual dismissal was of no legal effect.
• Insubordination: The termination for insubordination was illegal. Willful disobedience requires a wrongful and perverse attitude and an order that is reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and pertains to his duties. Neither element was satisfied. First, petitioner did not willfully ignore the notices; they were sent by registered mail and received only on August 23, 2013, September 6, 2013, and October 4, 2013, after which he reported to the office and even submitted a written explanation on September 18, 2013 citing his lack of funds. Second, the three notices were mere general return‑to‑work orders that failed to state the specific details required under Section 5.2 of DOLE Department Order No. 14‑01—such as description of the job, hours of work, and pay rates. They were thus insufficient to support a charge of insubordination and were, as in Padilla v. Airborne Security Service, Inc., a cover‑up for constructive dismissal.
• Monetary awards: Because petitioner was constructively dismissed without a just or authorized cause, the ordinary remedies for illegal dismissal apply. Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement was proper given petitioner’s own prayer for such, the strained relations between the parties, and the lapse of eight years since the dismissal. Backwages were to be computed from May 12, 2012 (when he was unjustly placed on floating status without justifiable reason) up to the finality of the decision. Attorney’s fees of ten percent of the total monetary award were awarded because petitioner was compelled to litigate. The officers Sergio Jamila III and Eddimar O. Arcena were not held personally liable absent any showing of bad faith.

• Constructive dismissal through prolonged floating status — A security guard placed on temporary “off‑detail” or “floating status” for more than six months is deemed constructively dismissed. Article 292 of the Labor Code fixes the maximum period of floating status at six months; beyond this, the employer must either give a new assignment or terminate the employee for an authorized cause with proper notice. The rule applies unless the floating status is justified by a valid reason such as the employee’s failure to maintain a valid security guard license.
• Requisites of willful disobedience/insubordination — For a dismissal based on insubordination to be valid, two elements must concur: (1) the employee’s conduct must have been willful, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties which the employee had been engaged to discharge. Vague return‑to‑work orders that lack the specific details mandated by DOLE Department Order No. 14‑01 cannot support a charge of insubordination.
• Backwages in constructive dismissal — Where there is constructive dismissal, backwages shall be computed from the time the employee was unjustly relieved from duty—i.e., the start of the unjustified floating status—up to the finality of the decision awarding backwages.
• Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement — Separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary per year of service is proper when reinstatement is no longer viable due to strained relations and the considerable length of time that has passed since the dismissal.
• Employer‑corporate officer liability — As a rule, only the employer‑corporation, not its officers, may be held liable for illegal dismissal. Corporate officers may be held personally liable only if they acted with bad faith or malice.

• “Temporary ‘off‑detail’ or ‘floating status’ is the period of time when security guards are in between assignments or when they are made to wait after being relieved from a previous post until they are transferred to a new one. … When such a ‘floating status’ lasts for more than six (6) months, the employee may be considered to have been constructively dismissed.” — The Court’s articulation of the floating‑status rule, citing Tatel v. JLFP Investigation Security Agency, Inc.
• “The security agency clearly misled petitioner into believing that it cannot give him a new posting assignment because his security guard license had already expired. It repeatedly required petitioner to first renew his security guard license or he would not be given a new posting assignment, albeit in truth, petitioner’s security guard license had not at all expired yet.” — The factual finding that defeated the agency’s sole justification for the prolonged floating status.
• “Notably, the notices did not indicate the required specific details under DO 14‑01. They merely directed petitioner to report to the security agency’s head office and explain why he failed to comply with the orders, nothing more.” — The reason the return‑to‑work orders were legally insufficient to support a charge of insubordination.

• Tatel v. JLFP Investigation Security Agency, Inc., 755 Phil. 171 (2015) — Followed; defined “floating status” and set the rule that floating status beyond six months amounts to constructive dismissal.
• Salvaloza v. NLRC, 650 Phil. 543 (2010) — Followed; involved a security guard whose floating status exceeded six months on an unjustified claim of expired license; the employee was ruled constructively dismissed.
• Padilla v. Airborne Security Service, Inc., 821 Phil. 482 (2017) — Followed; held that general return‑to‑work orders lacking the specific details required by DOLE Department Order No. 14‑01 are insufficient to prove a genuine offer of assignment and serve as a cover‑up for constructive dismissal.
• Soliman Security Services, Inc. v. Sarmiento, 792 Phil. 708 (2016) — Distinguished; it applied the separation pay provisions under DOLE Department Order No. 14‑01 for termination due to lack of service assignment, whereas in this case there was no authorized cause.
• Peak Ventures Corp. v. Heirs of Villareal, 747 Phil. 320 (2014) — Followed; established that in constructive dismissal cases, backwages must be computed from the time the employee was unjustly relieved from duty.
• University of Manila v. Pinera, G.R. No. 227550, August 14, 2019 — Followed; cited for the two requisites of willful disobedience.

• Article 292 [286], Labor Code — Bona‑fide suspension of business operations for not more than six months does not terminate employment. Applied by analogy to fix the maximum duration of a security guard’s floating status at six months.
• Article 297 [282], Labor Code — Enumerates just causes for termination, including willful disobedience. The elements of insubordination were found lacking.
• DOLE Department Order No. 14, Series of 2001 — Section 5.2 requires duty detail orders to specify the job description, hours of work, work shift, and pay rates. The agency’s return‑to‑work notices contained none of these details. Sections 6.5 and 9.3 provide for separation pay of one‑half month per year of service when termination is due to lack of service assignment for a continuous period of six months, but the termination here was not for that authorized cause.
• Republic Act No. 5487 (Private Security Agency Law) — Requires security guards to hold a valid license. The agency invoked this law to justify the demand for renewal, but Ador’s license remained valid.

Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, Reyes, J.C., Jr., and Lopez, JJ., concur.