In the case of Gerardo A. Carique v. Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency, Inc., the Supreme Court affirmed that an employee’s refusal to accept new assignments offered by their employer negates a claim of illegal dismissal. The Court emphasized that the employer bears the burden of proving a valid dismissal, but the employee must first establish the fact of dismissal with substantial evidence. This ruling underscores the importance of clearly demonstrating dismissal through positive acts, rather than relying on allegations. It also clarifies the boundaries between an employer’s right to manage its operations and an employee’s security of tenure, particularly in the context of security agencies.

When a Security Guard Turns Down Assignments: Was it Really Illegal Dismissal?

Gerardo A. Carique, a security guard employed by Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency, Inc., filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming he was terminated after being relieved from his post and not given new assignments. The security agency, however, argued that Carique was merely placed on floating status due to a rotation policy and that he refused subsequent job offers. This case hinged on whether Carique’s relief from his post and the subsequent events constituted illegal dismissal, or whether his refusal of new assignments justified the employer’s actions. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of Carique, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, finding that Carique had indeed refused new assignments. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC’s ruling, leading Carique to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by emphasizing that the burden of proving illegal dismissal rests on the employee. The employee must present substantial evidence demonstrating positive and overt acts indicating a manifest intention to dismiss. In Carique’s case, the Court found that he failed to provide such evidence. Instead, the security agency presented Special Security Details (SSDs) and sworn statements from its officers, attesting that Carique was offered new assignments, which he refused without justification. The Court noted that Carique did not deny receiving copies of these SSDs, further weakening his claim of illegal dismissal.

The Court then addressed the concept of “floating status” in the context of security agency employment. It acknowledged that security guards are often placed on floating status between assignments, depending on the agency’s contracts with third parties. The Court cited the case of Sentinel Security Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 356 Phil. 434, 443 (1998), where it recognized that this practice is not unusual. Placing an employee on floating status for a reasonable period, not exceeding six months, is not considered illegal dismissal. Here, Carique’s floating status did not exceed six months, and he was offered new assignments within that period, further undermining his claim.

A critical aspect of the case involved the rotation policy implemented by the security agency. Carique argued that this policy was not a bona fide suspension of operations under Article 286 of the Labor Code and that the new assignments offered were merely temporary, not reinstating him to his former regular status. However, the Court pointed out that Carique raised these arguments for the first time on appeal. Issues not raised before the original tribunal cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, as it is unfair to the other party and violates due process.

Even if these arguments had been timely raised, the Court stated that they would not have been persuasive. The Court affirmed that the implementation of a rotation policy falls within the employer’s management prerogative. Employers have the inherent right to regulate all aspects of employment, including the right to transfer employees, as long as the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, prejudicial, or does not involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of benefits. The Court emphasized that it would not invalidate the security agency’s policy, which aimed to prevent familiarity between security personnel and the premises they guard, absent evidence of bad faith or intent to circumvent these conditions.

The Court quoted the case of Salvaloza v. National Labor Relations Commission, 650 Phil. 543, 557 (2010), highlighting that:

contracts for security services may stipulate that the clients may request the agency for the replacement of the guard/s assigned to it even for want of cause; and that such replaced security guard/s could be placed on temporary “off-detail” or “floating status” which is the period of time when such security guard/s 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.

This underscores the unique nature of security agency employment, where assignments are often dictated by client contracts and the need for rotation. Additionally, Carique’s consistent assignment and periodic transfer to different clients since 1992, without any prior objection, estopped him from challenging the rotation policy now. His prior conduct implied consent to the policy, preventing him from claiming it as a violation of his security of tenure.

Moreover, the Court dismissed Carique’s claim that the new assignments were merely “reliever” positions, arguing that even temporary assignments could lead to regular employment if the employee rendered at least one year of service, as stated in The Peninsula Manila v. Alipio, 577 Phil. 420, 428 (2008). More importantly, the Court emphasized that the primary standard for determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the activity performed by the employee and the employer’s business or trade. Since the offered assignments were essential to the security agency’s business, they were considered regular, and Carique’s refusal was unjustified.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court sided with the security agency, emphasizing that Carique’s actions negated his claim of illegal dismissal. The Court found no substantial evidence to support Carique’s allegations and upheld the employer’s right to implement a rotation policy within the bounds of management prerogative.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the security guard was illegally dismissed when he was placed on floating status and subsequently refused new assignments, or whether the employer’s actions were a valid exercise of management prerogative.
What is “floating status” for a security guard?	Floating status refers to the period when a security guard is between assignments, waiting to be transferred to a new post after being relieved from a previous one. This status is common in the security industry due to the nature of contracts with clients.
Can an employer implement a rotation policy?	Yes, the Supreme Court recognized that implementing a rotation policy is within the employer’s management prerogative, allowing them to regulate employment as long as it is not unreasonable or prejudicial to the employee.
What evidence is needed to prove illegal dismissal?	To prove illegal dismissal, an employee must present substantial evidence of positive and overt acts indicating the employer’s manifest intention to dismiss them. Mere allegations are not sufficient.
What is the significance of an employee refusing a new assignment?	If an employee refuses a new assignment without justifiable reason, it can negate their claim of illegal dismissal, especially if the assignment is within the scope of their job and the employer’s business.
What is the “management prerogative”?	Management prerogative refers to the employer’s inherent right to control and manage its business operations, including hiring, firing, and transferring employees, subject to legal limitations and collective bargaining agreements.
What happens if an issue is raised for the first time on appeal?	Issues not raised before the original tribunal (like the Labor Arbiter or NLRC) cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, as it is considered unfair to the opposing party and violates due process.
What is the relevance of Article 286 of the Labor Code in this case?	Article 286 of the Labor Code pertains to situations where employment is not deemed terminated due to a bona fide suspension of operations, but the Court found it inapplicable in this case because the security guard’s relief was due to a rotation policy, not a suspension of operations.

This case reaffirms the principle that while security of tenure is a constitutionally protected right, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the employer’s right to manage its business effectively. Security guards, in particular, must be aware that their employment is subject to the dynamics of the security industry, including rotation policies and client requests. Refusing valid job offers can significantly weaken a claim of illegal dismissal.

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: GERARDO A. CARIQUE, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE SCOUT VETERANS SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC., AND/OR RICARDO BONA AND SEVERO SANTIAGO, G.R. No. 197484, September 16, 2015