ABC-RMO SECURITY & INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC., AND JAIME J. JUADINES, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION) AND LOUIEJIE G. BAUTISTA, RESPONDENTS.

ABC-RMO Security and Investigation Agency versus Bautista

The Case

This is a labor case about a security guard who was left without a post for more than six months and then told, in effect, to resign. The security agency and its general manager ask the Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeals, which had declared the guard constructively dismissed and awarded him backwages, separation pay, damages, and attorney's fees. The case matters for two reasons: it is a clean restatement of the six-month floating status rule for security guards, and it reminds us that the wrong remedy and a late filing can end an appeal before the merits are ever reached.

Procedural History

The guard, Louiejie Bautista, and three co-complainants filed consolidated complaints before the Labor Arbiter for constructive dismissal and various money claims. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the constructive dismissal claim for lack of merit but ordered payment of service incentive leave, 13th month pay, and attorney's fees. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed with modification: it declared the three co-complainants constructively dismissed, but denied Bautista's illegal dismissal claim on a procedural ground, because his original complaint had not raised it. Bautista moved for partial reconsideration; denied, he went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, declared Bautista constructively dismissed, and awarded backwages, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, remanding the case to the Labor Arbiter for computation. The agency and its general manager then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari.

Facts

Bautista was hired by the security agency as a security guard in October 2017 and was assigned to a bank foundation in Quezon City. After January 31, 2021, he and his co-complainants stopped rendering service. On February 1, 2021, the agency told him it had failed to secure another contract at his original place of assignment. When the guards asked about the status of their employment, the general manager told them to resign, since the agency had no available work for them.

The guards waited for months for a new assignment, but the agency neither contacted them nor gave them updates. On March 1, 2021, one of the guards filed a request for assistance under the Single-Entry Approach with the National Labor Relations Commission. The complaints for constructive dismissal and money claims followed in July 2021 and were consolidated. Bautista's original complaint did not allege constructive dismissal, but he later filed an amended complaint that included it, and his position paper alleged the facts of the floating status.

The agency's defense was that Bautista had been reassigned effective March 31, 2021 to a corporate plaza in Taguig City, that he never showed up, and that he was absent without leave. It claimed it sent a delinquency report and two notices to report, and that an investigative committee recommended him for termination. The records showed, however, that the notices were mailed long after they were dated, and only after the agency received the request for assistance.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition should be dismissed outright on procedural grounds.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Bautista was constructively dismissed.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the rule on the period to appeal to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari. The Court states the settled rule as follows:

It is settled that the proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a judgment, final order, or resolution of the CA is to file with the Court a verified petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 within 15 days from notice of the judgment, final order, or resolution appealed from.

This governs the first issue, because the agency filed a petition for certiorari instead of a petition for review, and filed its motion for extension long after the period had lapsed.

The decision also construes the National Labor Relations Commission Rules of Procedure on the scope of a complainant's causes of action. The Court quotes its prior ruling on this point:

It is only upon the filing of position papers that the complainant is able to expound on the employer's acts or omissions which constitute his/her causes of action against the latter.

This bears on the second issue, because it explains why the position paper, and not the bare complaint, is the operative pleading that fixes the causes of action.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court holds that the petition is the wrong remedy and was filed out of time. A petition for certiorari cannot substitute for an appeal where the appeal was available but lost through fault or negligence, and the agency failed to show any exceptional circumstance warranting relaxation. Even if the petition were treated as a petition for review, it would still fail: the agency received the assailed decision on May 19, 2025, giving it until June 3, 2025 to file, but its motion for extension was filed only on July 17, 2025. Failure to appeal within the reglementary period is fatal and precludes the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction.

On the second issue, the Court holds that the Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion. The Labor Arbiter had taken cognizance of the amended complaint that included illegal dismissal, and in any event the position paper sufficiently alleged the facts of the floating status, which the agency itself countered in its own position paper. On the merits, the Court restates the rule for security guards: placing a guard on floating status is a valid exercise of management prerogative, provided it does not exceed six months; otherwise the guard is deemed constructively dismissed. The employer must give a new assignment to a specific client before the six months lapse, and a general return-to-work order does not suffice. Here, the office order reassigning Bautista named a building but not the particular client, and there was no proof he received it. The delinquency report and notices to report were disciplinary in nature, not notices of assignment, and were mailed long after issuance and only after the request for assistance was filed. The Court quotes the office order:

SG Louiejie G. Bautista, having been appointed/employed as Security Guard in this Agency is hereby reassigned at High Street South Corporate Plaza Towers, BGC, Taguig City, effective March 31, 2021.

Because the order did not specify the client, it was a mere general return-to-work order, insufficient to interrupt the floating status.

Doctrine

First, the proper remedy against a judgment of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, filed within 15 days from notice; a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute, and the period cannot be extended by a motion filed after it has lapsed.

Second, in labor cases the position paper is the operative act that forecloses the raising of causes of action, so a cause of action adequately alleged there may be resolved even if the initiatory complaint omitted it.

Third, placing a security guard on floating status is valid only if it does not exceed six months; beyond that, the guard is deemed constructively dismissed. The employer must assign the guard to a specific client before the six months lapse. A general return-to-work order, or a notice that merely directs the guard to explain an alleged absence, does not satisfy this requirement.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, and the decision of the Court of Appeals declaring Bautista constructively dismissed and awarding him backwages, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees was affirmed.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a security guard on floating status beyond six months is constructively dismissed, and only an assignment to a specific client can interrupt the count. Examiners use this case to test the six-month off-detail rule and the rule that a Rule 65 petition cannot substitute for a lost appeal.