Security Guards Duty to Accept Assignments vs Constructive Dismissal

When a security guard is placed on "floating status" — the period between assignments — the law gives the employer six months to find a new post. After that, the guard may be deemed constructively dismissed. But what if the guard himself refuses the assignment offered? In Exocet Security and Allied Services Corporation v. Serrano (G.R. No. 198538, September 29, 2014), the Supreme Court ruled that a guard who declines a reasonable reassignment cannot claim constructive dismissal.

The Facts

Armando Serrano worked as a "close-in" security guard for Exocet, assigned to VIP clients of JG Summit Holdings. After more than a decade, he was relieved from his VIP post on August 15, 2006. He reported back to Exocet but received no new assignment for over six months. In March 2007, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Exocet denied dismissing Serrano. It claimed that as early as September 2006, it offered him a general security service position because no VIP assignments were available. Serrano refused, insisting on a VIP detail. He even said he would simply wait until a VIP post opened up.

The Issue

The central question: Was Serrano constructively dismissed when his floating status lasted more than six months?

The Ruling

The Supreme Court said no. While the Labor Arbiter and Court of Appeals ruled in Serrano's favor, the High Court reversed, holding that Serrano's prolonged floating status was his own doing.

The Six-Month Rule

The Labor Code has no specific provision on floating status. Jurisprudence treats it as a form of temporary retrenchment or lay-off. By analogy to Article 292 (then Article 286) of the Labor Code — which allows bona fide suspension of operations for up to six months — the Court has set a maximum six-month period for a guard to remain on floating status.

After six months, the employer must either recall the guard to work or permanently retrench him following legal requirements. Failure to do so amounts to dismissal. The burden of proving no available post rests on the employer.

The Guard's Refusal Changes Everything

Here, the Court found that Exocet did offer Serrano work within the six-month period. The assignment was in general security — no demotion in rank, no reduction in salary or benefits. Serrano simply declined because he wanted a VIP post.

The Court stressed that security of tenure does not give an employee a vested right to a particular position. An employer may transfer or reassign employees for legitimate business interests, provided there is no demotion, diminution of benefits, or bad faith. Serrano's insistence on a VIP detail — a posting dependent on client contracts outside Exocet's control — amounted to willful disobedience of a lawful order, a just cause for termination under Article 288 (then Article 282) of the Labor Code.

Exocet, however, did not terminate Serrano on that ground and was deemed to have waived its right to do so.

The Proper Remedy

The Court ordered Exocet to look for a security assignment for Serrano within 30 days. If one is available, Serrano must report within 10 days of notice; otherwise, he is deemed to have abandoned his employment. If no assignment is available, Exocet must comply with DOLE Department Order No. 14, Series of 2001 and Article 289 of the Labor Code — serving written notice on Serrano and the DOLE one month before termination, and paying separation pay of half a month's pay for every year of service.

Practical Takeaways

• Floating status is not indefinite. A security guard may be placed on floating status for at most six months. Beyond that, the employer must recall the guard or validly terminate him.
• Refusing a reasonable assignment has consequences. A guard who declines a reassignment without demotion or loss of benefits may be guilty of willful disobedience — and cannot later claim constructive dismissal.
• Employers must prove no post exists. The burden is on the security agency to show there were no available assignments during the floating period.
• Proper procedure still matters. If no assignment is available after six months, the agency must follow the notice requirements of DO 14-01 and Article 289, and pay the correct separation pay.
• Security of tenure is not a right to a specific post. It protects against arbitrary dismissal, not against reasonable transfers made in good faith.

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