The Supreme Court has clarified the distinction between a security guard’s ‘floating status’ and illegal dismissal. The Court held that a security guard placed on temporary off-detail due to a client’s request for replacement is not automatically considered illegally dismissed. This status remains lawful for a maximum of six months, during which the agency seeks a new assignment. This decision underscores the importance of proving overt acts of dismissal by the employer to substantiate an illegal dismissal claim.

When a Client’s Request Doesn’t Mean the End: A Security Guard’s Job Security

Luciano Cañedo, a security guard at Naga Power Barge 102, found himself in a predicament after his client, the National Power Corporation (NPC), requested his replacement. Cañedo was employed by Kampilan Security and Detective Agency, Inc. The request stemmed from an incident where Cañedo was allegedly not wearing the proper uniform while on duty, leading to a one-month suspension. Subsequently, NPC informed the agency that they no longer required Cañedo’s services, prompting his removal from the post. Following these events, Cañedo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that his termination was unlawful. The core legal question revolves around whether the client’s request for replacement constitutes an illegal dismissal by the security agency.

The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of Cañedo, citing a certification issued by the agency stating that Cañedo was terminated from employment. However, this decision was later reversed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which argued that the certification should be read in conjunction with NPC’s request for replacement, indicating a ‘floating status’ rather than outright dismissal. This case highlights the legal nuances surrounding the employment of security guards and the extent to which a client’s request can impact their job security. To further examine this, we must delve into the legal framework surrounding dismissal and floating status.

Under Philippine labor law, the employer bears the burden of proving that a termination was for a valid or authorized cause. However, the employee must first establish the fact of dismissal with substantial evidence. This principle is enshrined in numerous Supreme Court decisions, emphasizing the importance of evidence-based claims. In the case of Montederamos v. Tri-Union International Corporation, the Supreme Court reiterated that while the employer has the burden to prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal from service. This means Cañedo had to show clear evidence of his dismissal beyond mere assertions.

The concept of ‘floating status’ is particularly relevant in the security industry, where assignments depend on contracts between the agency and third-party clients. The Supreme Court has recognized that placing a security guard on floating status is lawful and not unusual, as assignments primarily depend on contracts entered into by the agency with third parties, as emphasized in Agro Commercial Security Services Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission. This status allows the agency time to find a new posting for the security guard. However, this floating status cannot exceed six months. If no new assignment is secured within this period, it may ripen into constructive dismissal, as cited in Salvaloza v. National Labor Relations Commission.

In Cañedo’s case, the Court found that he failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove he was dismissed. The certification stating he was ‘terminated’ was interpreted in the context of NPC’s request for his replacement, suggesting a change in assignment rather than termination of employment. The Court also noted that Cañedo filed his complaint before the six-month floating status period had lapsed. This timeline was crucial in determining that his claim of illegal dismissal lacked basis. Furthermore, the Court considered Cañedo’s expressed intention to retire, which contradicted his claim of being unwillingly terminated. The intent of the employee plays a significant role in determining the nature of the separation from employment.

Moreover, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of interpreting documents based on the true intention of the parties involved. Section 12 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states that in the construction and interpretation of a document, the intention of the parties must be pursued. This means that the Court looks beyond the literal meaning of words to understand what the parties truly intended. In this case, the Court concluded that the certification was meant to confirm the end of Cañedo’s assignment with NPC, not his termination from the security agency.

The Court referenced Section 13 of the same Rule, which instructs that the circumstances under which a document was made may be shown in order to ascertain the correct interpretation of a document. These surrounding circumstances included NPC’s request, Cañedo’s suspension, and his expressed desire to retire. All these factors pointed to a situation different from illegal dismissal. Based on the totality of evidence and circumstances, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, which upheld the NLRC’s ruling that Cañedo was not illegally dismissed.

It is crucial to remember that the burden of proving illegal dismissal rests on the employee. This requires presenting clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that the employer took overt actions indicating an intention to dismiss. A mere client request for replacement does not automatically equate to illegal dismissal. Security guards are often subject to the ebb and flow of client contracts, and agencies are given a reasonable period to reassign them. To emphasize, this reasonable period is within six months. However, failure to do so within the specified timeframe may lead to a different conclusion.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Luciano Cañedo’s removal from his post at NPC, following the client’s request, constituted illegal dismissal by Kampilan Security and Detective Agency.
What is ‘floating status’ for a security guard?	‘Floating status’ refers to a temporary off-detail status where a security guard is without assignment, usually due to the termination of a client contract, while the agency seeks a new assignment for them. This is legal for six months.
Who has the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases?	In illegal dismissal cases, the employee must first prove they were dismissed, and then the employer must prove that the dismissal was for a valid cause.
How long can a security guard remain on ‘floating status’?	A security guard can remain on ‘floating status’ for a maximum of six months. If no new assignment is given within this period, it may constitute constructive dismissal.
What evidence did Cañedo present to support his claim of illegal dismissal?	Cañedo primarily relied on a certification issued by the agency stating he was ‘terminated’ from employment.
What was the Court’s interpretation of the certification?	The Court interpreted the certification in the context of NPC’s request for replacement, concluding that it indicated the end of his assignment with NPC, not termination from the agency.
Why did the Court deny Cañedo’s claim for additional benefits?	The Court denied the claim because it is settled that a non-appellant cannot, on appeal, seek an affirmative relief.
What is the significance of the client’s request for replacement?	A client’s request for replacement does not automatically equate to illegal dismissal; it is a common occurrence in the security industry, allowing the agency to reassign the guard.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of clear and convincing evidence in labor disputes. While the rights of employees are protected under Philippine law, it is crucial to substantiate claims with solid evidence and understand the nuances of employment arrangements in specific industries. Especially security guards, whose nature of work is reliant to the clients of their security agencies.

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: Luciano P. Cañedo vs. Kampilan Security and Detective Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 179326, July 31, 2013