Floating Status of Security Guards: When Return-to-Work Orders Defeat Claims of Constructive Dismissal

The Supreme Court recently clarified the rules on "floating status" for security guards and when an employer's return-to-work orders can defeat a claim of constructive dismissal. 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 illegally dismissed after being temporarily relieved from his post. The ruling provides practical guidance for both employees and employers on the limits of management prerogative in assigning security personnel.

The Facts of the Case

Allan Radaza worked as a security guard for Alcatraz Security & Investigation Agency, Inc. (ASIAI) starting March 10, 2009. His final assignment was at Bonifacio Heights in Taguig City. In January 2018, Radaza suffered a mild stroke while on duty and was hospitalized. His physician recommended rest, so he took sick leave until March 1, 2018.

When Radaza returned to work on March 2, 2018, ASIAI did not immediately give him an assignment. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on July 24, 2018, claiming he was constructively dismissed through a "prolonged floating status." ASIAI countered that it had offered him a new assignment at Monarch Parksuites Condominium, which Radaza refused. The company also issued two return-to-work orders—dated August 16 and August 29, 2018—directing him to report for duty and specifying his new deployment.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether Radaza was constructively dismissed when ASIAI failed to give him an assignment for several months after his return from sick leave, despite the return-to-work orders issued later.

The Ruling: No Constructive Dismissal

The Supreme Court ruled that Radaza was not illegally dismissed. The Court explained that placing security guards on temporary "floating status"—the period when guards are between assignments and waiting to be posted—is a valid exercise of management prerogative, provided it does not exceed six months. This rule is anchored on Article 301 of the Labor Code, which sets the maximum period for a bona fide suspension of operations.

The Court emphasized that the return-to-work orders issued by ASIAI were specific, not general. They did not merely instruct Radaza to report to the company's head office; they identified the particular client (Monarch Parksuites Condominium) and the exact location where he would be deployed. This specificity distinguished the case from prior rulings where the Court found constructive dismissal because the employer issued only vague, general orders to report to the office without naming a specific assignment.

The Court also rejected the argument that the return-to-work orders were "mere afterthoughts" because they were issued after Radaza filed his complaint. Citing Sagrino v. Toplis Solution, Inc., the Court held that employers may offer new assignments even during the pendency of a labor dispute. Such offers constitute affirmative acts showing the employer's intent to preserve the employment relationship.

The Burden of Proof in Illegal Dismissal Cases

A key takeaway from the ruling is the allocation of the burden of proof. While the employer generally bears the burden of proving that a dismissal was legal, the employee must first prove by substantial evidence that he or she was actually dismissed. In this case, Radaza failed to discharge this initial burden. His bare allegation that ASIAI refused to give him an assignment was outweighed by the documentary evidence—the specific return-to-work orders—which showed the company's continued intent to employ him.

No Monetary Awards Without a Finding of Dismissal

Because Radaza was not dismissed, the Court affirmed the denial of his claims for backwages, separation pay, damages, and attorney's fees. Citing Chong Guan Trading v. NLRC and Radar Security & Watchman Agency, Inc. v. Castro, the Court applied the principle that where an employee's failure to work is occasioned neither by abandonment nor by termination, each party must bear his own loss. The employer should not be penalized for the employee's failure to report for duty when there was no fault on the employer's part.

Practical Takeaways

• Specific return-to-work orders matter. A notice that identifies a particular client and location for deployment carries greater evidentiary weight than a general directive to report to the head office. Employers should ensure their orders are specific to defeat claims of constructive dismissal.

• Floating status has a six-month limit. Security guards may be placed on temporary off-detail status for up to six months without constituting dismissal. Beyond that period, the employee may be considered constructively dismissed.

• Employees must prove dismissal first. In illegal dismissal cases, the employee bears the initial burden of proving the fact of dismissal by substantial evidence. Bare allegations, without more, will not suffice.

• Employers may act during pending cases. Offering reassignment or reinstatement even after a complaint is filed can be a valid defense, as long as the offer is specific and made in good faith.

• No dismissal, no separation pay. Where there is neither dismissal nor abandonment, the parties bear their own losses, and the employee is not entitled to separation pay or backwages.

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