Percival Aguinaldo was hired as a security guard by Philippine Industrial Security Agency Corporation (PISAC) and assigned to a bank branch. He was caught smoking and without headgear on duty. PISAC issued a memorandum to investigate and temporarily reassigned him to another branch pending the opening of a new branch. Aguinaldo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The court ruled the indefinite reassignment without a set date for his actual new post amounted to constructive dismissal. While reinstatement is usually ordered, Aguinaldo requested separation pay instead, which the court awarded along with back wages.
Percival Aguinaldo was hired as a security guard by Philippine Industrial Security Agency Corporation (PISAC) and assigned to a bank branch. He was caught smoking and without headgear on duty. PISAC issued a memorandum to investigate and temporarily reassigned him to another branch pending the opening of a new branch. Aguinaldo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The court ruled the indefinite reassignment without a set date for his actual new post amounted to constructive dismissal. While reinstatement is usually ordered, Aguinaldo requested separation pay instead, which the court awarded along with back wages.
Percival Aguinaldo was hired as a security guard by Philippine Industrial Security Agency Corporation (PISAC) and assigned to a bank branch. He was caught smoking and without headgear on duty. PISAC issued a memorandum to investigate and temporarily reassigned him to another branch pending the opening of a new branch. Aguinaldo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The court ruled the indefinite reassignment without a set date for his actual new post amounted to constructive dismissal. While reinstatement is usually ordered, Aguinaldo requested separation pay instead, which the court awarded along with back wages.
Percival Aguinaldo was hired as a security guard by Philippine Industrial Security Agency Corporation (PISAC) and assigned to a bank branch. He was caught smoking and without headgear on duty. PISAC issued a memorandum to investigate and temporarily reassigned him to another branch pending the opening of a new branch. Aguinaldo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The court ruled the indefinite reassignment without a set date for his actual new post amounted to constructive dismissal. While reinstatement is usually ordered, Aguinaldo requested separation pay instead, which the court awarded along with back wages.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
Allen Michael B.
Escudero Labor Relations
PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY CORPORATION vs. PERCIVAL AGUINALDO [G.R. No. 149974. June 15, 2005] Facts: Philippine Industrial Security Agency Corporation (PISAC), petitioner, hired Percival Aguinaldo, respondent, as a security guard. He was assigned to secure the premises of Far East Bank & Trust Company (FEBTC) Branch in Santiago City. He was promoted as Branch Head Guard. Ms. Remy Tumamao, petitioners roving personnel, caught respondent without headgear and smoking while on duty. Respondent explained his side in a Memorandum stating: I was not able to use my perching cap at that time because my hair is still wet. I was in complete attire before the incident but when I received an emergency call from our armor crew who, on that time has a cash transfer to Central Bank Tuguegarao Cagayan, I was informed that our armor car had a mechanical trouble. So even if it was raining, I called our Mechanic immediately residing beside our branch. Petitioner security agency issued a memorandum to respondent directing him to report to the FEBTC main office in Malabon City for investigation petitioner issued a Relief Order . Antonio B. Banastas, Jr., Branch Head of FEBTC, Santiago City, wrote a Memorandum to petitioner requesting the retention of respondent in the same office. Petitioner assigned respondent temporarily to FEBTC Malabon City Branch pending the opening of another Branch in Santiago City where according to said petitioner, he will be re-assigned. This prompted respondent to file with the Office of the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of separation pay with damages against petitioner. Issue: Whether or not reassignment to another post that was not yet open amounted to constructive dismissal. Ruling: Yes. There was no date given for his assumption of his new post. There was no assurance that it would ever be realized. Respondent PISACs act of giving the complainant an assignment in the future amounts to an indefinite suspension. It is settled that an indefinite suspension is tantamount to a constructive dismissal (Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. NLRC (246 SCRA 294). Under these circumstances, the complainant would ordinarily be entitled to reinstatement with full backwages (Article 279, Labor Code). However, since he prayed for separation pay in the complaint, he should be awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and of course, full backwages. A constructive dismissal is a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay (Philippine Japan Active Carbon Corp. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 83239, March 8, 1989) a transfer not to be considered a constructive dismissal, the employer must be able to show that such transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Failure of the employer to overcome this burden of proof, the employees demotion shall no doubt be tantamount to unlawful constructive dismissal.
