Key Takeaway: Not All Absences Constitute Abandonment of Employment

Mark E. Samillano v. Valdez Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. / Emma V. Licuanan, G.R. No. 239396, June 23, 2020

Imagine waking up one day to find yourself out of a job, not because you were fired, but because your employer claims you abandoned your post. This is the reality Mark E. Samillano faced when he was relieved from his security guard position and later accused of abandoning his job. The central question in his case was whether his absence from work after being relieved from his post constituted abandonment, justifying his termination. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case sheds light on the nuances of employment termination and the importance of clear communication between employers and employees.

Legal Context: Understanding Termination and Abandonment

In the Philippines, the Labor Code governs the relationship between employers and employees, including the grounds for termination. Article 297 of the Labor Code lists just causes for termination, one of which is neglect of duty, which can include abandonment. However, abandonment is not just about missing work; it requires a clear and deliberate intent to discontinue employment without any intention of returning.

The concept of “floating status” is also relevant in this case. Security guards often find themselves in between assignments, a period known as being on floating status. This status does not constitute dismissal if it lasts less than six months. The Supreme Court has clarified that during this period, employees are not entitled to salary or financial assistance, but they remain employees of the agency.

Key legal principles include:

• Burden of Proof: The employer must prove that the employee’s absence was deliberate and unjustified.
• Constructive Dismissal: If an employee is placed on floating status for more than six months, it may be considered constructive dismissal.
• Reinstatement: If neither dismissal nor abandonment is proven, the employee may be reinstated without backwages.

These principles are crucial for both employers and employees to understand, as they impact the validity of termination and the rights of the parties involved.

Case Breakdown: From Relief to Reinstatement

Mark E. Samillano was employed by Valdez Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. as a security guard at Mornesse Center of Spirituality. On December 3, 2013, he was relieved from his post following a request from the client due to a pending legal complaint against the agency. Samillano and his co-guard were instructed to report to the agency’s head office for reassignment, but Samillano did not comply.

The procedural journey of the case saw Samillano filing a complaint for illegal dismissal, which was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), both of which found no dismissal had occurred. The Court of Appeals (CA), however, ruled that Samillano was dismissed for just cause but awarded nominal damages for lack of due process.

The Supreme Court’s decision focused on the following points:

• No Dismissal: “Petitioner was not dismissed from service but was merely placed on temporary ‘off-detail’ or floating status.”
• No Abandonment: “The respondents failed to establish the petitioner’s deliberate and unjustified intent to abandon his employment.”
• Reinstatement: “Where the parties failed to prove the presence of either the dismissal of the employee or the abandonment of his work, the remedy is to reinstate such employee without payment of backwages.”

The Court emphasized that Samillano’s failure to report to work did not constitute abandonment, especially since he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal seeking reinstatement.

Practical Implications: Navigating Employment Disputes

This ruling has significant implications for employers and employees in the security industry and beyond. Employers must ensure clear communication when relieving employees from posts and offer reassignment opportunities. Employees should be aware of their rights and the importance of maintaining contact with their employer during periods of floating status.

Key Lessons:

• Employers should document all communications and attempts to reassign employees to avoid claims of dismissal.
• Employees must keep their contact information updated and respond to employer notices to avoid being accused of abandonment.
• In cases of dispute, both parties should seek legal advice to understand their rights and obligations under the Labor Code.

This case underscores the need for both parties to act in good faith and maintain open lines of communication to prevent misunderstandings that could lead to legal disputes.

Frequently Asked Questions

What constitutes abandonment of employment?
Abandonment requires a clear and deliberate intent to discontinue employment without any intention of returning, evidenced by absence without valid reason and overt acts showing intent to sever the employment relationship.

Can an employee be dismissed for being on floating status?
Being on floating status for less than six months does not constitute dismissal. However, if it exceeds six months, it may be considered constructive dismissal.

What should an employee do if relieved from their post?
Employees should report to their employer as instructed and keep their contact information updated to receive notices of reassignment.

What are the rights of an employee on floating status?
Employees on floating status remain employed and should be reassigned within six months. They are not entitled to salary during this period but can seek reinstatement if not reassigned.

How can an employer avoid claims of illegal dismissal?
Employers should provide clear notices of relief and reassignment, document all communications, and ensure compliance with due process requirements under the Labor Code.

ASG Law specializes in labor and employment law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.