Reassignment vs Constructive Dismissal: Security of Tenure in Philippine Civil Service

The Supreme Court recently clarified the line between a valid reassignment and constructive dismissal in the context of security guards placed on temporary "floating status." In Radaza v. Alcatraz Security & Investigation Agency, Inc. (G.R. No. 272859, February 19, 2026), the Court denied the petition of the heirs of a security guard who claimed he was constructively dismissed when his agency refused to give him an assignment after he returned from sick leave. The ruling reaffirms that an employee claiming illegal dismissal must first prove the fact of dismissal—and that specific return-to-work orders can defeat a claim of constructive dismissal.

The Facts of the Case

Allan B. Radaza worked as a security guard for Alcatraz Security & Investigation Agency, Inc. (ASIAI) starting March 10, 2009. In January 2018, he suffered a mild stroke while on duty and was hospitalized. After his physician cleared him, he reported back to work on March 2, 2018, but claimed ASIAI refused to give him an assignment. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on July 24, 2018.

ASIAI denied dismissing Radaza. It claimed it offered him an assignment at Monarch Parksuites Condominium, which was indoor and near his residence—a suitable posting given his health condition. Radaza refused, insisting on returning to Bonifacio Heights. ASIAI later sent two return-to-work orders (dated August 16 and 29, 2018) directing Radaza to report for deployment at Monarch Parksuites.

The Issue

The central question was whether Radaza was constructively dismissed when ASIAI did not give him an assignment between March 2 and July 24, 2018, or whether the subsequent return-to-work orders showed that no dismissal occurred.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that Radaza was not illegally dismissed. The Court applied the established doctrine on "floating status": security guards may be placed on temporary off-detail or floating status as a valid exercise of management prerogative, provided it does not exceed six months. The Court noted that while the Labor Code does not contain a specific provision on floating status, the six-month maximum period has been consistently applied in jurisprudence.

The Court found that the return-to-work orders were specific, not general. Unlike cases where employers merely told employees to report to the head office without naming a client, ASIAI's orders expressly identified Monarch Parksuites Condominium as the deployment site. This specificity distinguished the case from prior rulings like Padilla v. Airborne Security Service, Inc. and Sagarino v. Toplis Solution, Inc., where general orders were held insufficient.

The Court also rejected the argument that the orders were "mere afterthoughts" because they were issued after the complaint was filed. Citing Sagarino, the Court held that nothing prevents an employer from offering reassignment during the pendency of a labor dispute, and such offers constitute affirmative acts showing intent to preserve the employment relationship.

Burden of Proof in Illegal Dismissal Cases

A key takeaway is the allocation of burden of proof. While the employer bears the burden of proving that a dismissal was legal, the employee must first prove by substantial evidence that he or she was dismissed. Radaza failed to discharge this initial burden—his claim rested on bare allegations, while ASIAI presented documentary evidence of the return-to-work orders.

No Monetary Claims Without Dismissal

Since there was no illegal dismissal, the Court affirmed the denial of backwages, separation pay, damages, and attorney's fees. Citing Chong Guan Trading v. NLRC and Radar Security & Watchman Agency, Inc. v. Castro, the Court held that where the employee's failure to work was due neither to abandonment nor termination, each party must bear his own loss. The Court also noted that if an employee chooses not to return to work after being reinstated, he may be considered to have voluntarily resigned.

Practical Takeaways

• Floating status is legal, but time-bound. Security agencies may place guards on off-detail status for up to six months. Beyond that, the guard may be deemed constructively dismissed.
• Specificity matters in return-to-work orders. A notice that merely tells an employee to report to the head office may be insufficient. The order should identify the specific client or post where the employee will be deployed.
• Employees must first prove dismissal. In illegal dismissal cases, the employee bears the initial burden of showing that he or she was actually dismissed. Bare allegations will not suffice.
• Post-complaint reassignment offers still count. An employer's offer of reassignment during the pendency of a labor case is not automatically a "mere afterthought"—it can be evidence of good faith.
• No dismissal, no separation pay. If there is neither termination nor abandonment, the employee is not entitled to backwages or separation pay; each party bears its own losses.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.