IBON v. GENGHIS KHAN SECURITY SERVICES assignment; and that Genhis Khan had no intention to reinstate him.
Moreover, that for not being given an assignment for more than 6 months
GR No. 221085 | June 19, 2017
FACTS:
1. Ravengar Ibon (Ibon) was hired as a security guard by Genghis Khan
Security Services (Genghis Khan) in June 2008.
th
2. Ibon was assigned to Mr. Solis in New Manila, then to 5 Avenue
Condominium in Fort Bonifacio in September 2008, then to Aspen Tower
Condominium in June 2009.
3. He was assigned to Aspen Tower until October 4, 2010. Thereafter,
Genghis Khan Security Services promised to provide him a new
assignment, but did not.
4. Ibon filed a petition for illegal dismissal with claims for underpayment of
wages on May 10, 2011 alleging that
a. He was no longer assigned to a new post after his last duty on
October 2010;
b. He was merely receiving a daily salary of P384 pesos; and
c. In the course of his employment, Genghis Khan would deduct
P200 per month as cash bond from September 2008 to
September 2010.
5. Genghis Khan denied Ibon’s allegation that he was placed on floating
status for more than 6 months. According to the corporation, Ibon was
suspended on October 4, 2010 for sleeping on the job. It was also
alleged that Ibon was re-assigned to another client, but Ibon refused
because his license was due for renewal. Since then Ibon never reported
for work.
6. Genghis Khan also stated that sometime in November 2010, Ibon went
th
to Genghis Khan’s office to claim his 13 month pay, but it was not given
to him because it was not yet due. Genghis Khan thereafter received a
th
call from DOLE regarding Ibon’s claim for 13 month pay. The parties
were able to settle the case in a proceeding before the DOLE, and
Genghis Khan sent a letter to Ibon requiring him to report for work, but he
did not show up. Hence, Genghis Khan was surprised to receive
summons regarding this case for illegal dismissal.
7. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Ibon was constructively dismissed because
Genghis Khan failed to put him on duty for more than 6 months. Ibon is
thus entitled to backwages, and in view of the strained relationships
between the two, Ibon is granted separation pay, wage differential,
service incentive leave pay, and reimbursement of the cash bond.
8. The NLRC reversed the decision of the LA, ruling that no constructive
dismissal exists. The NRLC also denied the subsequent MR.
9. The CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC. Hence, this petition.
10. Ibon argues that he did not receive any letter requiring him to go back to
work; that a perusal of the letters reveal that it did not indicate a specific
is an authorized cause for termination and entitles him to separation pay.
ISSUES:
Whether or not Ibon was illegally dismissed (YES).
RATIO:
Ibon was illegally dismissed, as he was not deployed to a new
assignment within 6 months from his last deployment, and the return to
work letter did not state a specific assignment.
Despite Genghis Khan’s argument that Ibon was suspended for sleeping on
the job, and that it sent letters to Ibon requiring him to report back to work,
the Court sees basis to rule that Ibon was constructively dismissed.
A temporary off-detail of a security guard is generally allowed, but it is
tantamount to constructive dismissal if the floating status extends
beyond 6 months.
Constructive dismissal exists if there is an act of clear discrimination,
insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part
of the employee that it can foreclose any choice by him except to forego his
continued employment, or when there is cessation of work because
continued employment is rendered impossible, or unlikely, as an offer
involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.
Here, Ibon was last deployed on October 4, 2010. Therefore, it was
incumbent upon Genghis Khan to prove that Ibon was redeployed within 6
months. Otherwise, Ibon would be deemed to have been constructively
dismissed.
A perusal of the records reveals that aside from Genghis Khan’s bare
assertion that Ibon was suspended, there was no evidence of the imposition
of the suspension. Genghis Khan could have easily produced documents to
support that Ibon was suspended, considering that employers are required to
observe due process in the discipline of employees.
Genghis Khan cannot rely on the letter requiring Ibon to return to work to
refute a finding of constructive dismissal. The 2 letters that were supposedly
sent merely requested that Ibon report back to work and explain why he
failed to report to the office. Further, there was no proof that Ibon received
the letters.
Based on Tatel v. JLFP Investigation, a general return-to-work order does
not suffice. The following must also be done:
1. The employer must assign the security guard to another posting
within 6 months from his last deployment, otherwise, he would be
considered constructively dismissed; and
2. The security guard must be assigned to a specific or particular client.

Applying the same to this case, Genghis Khan should have deployed Ibon to
a specific client within 6 months from his last assignment (October 4, 2010).
However, the letter merely required Ibon to return to work without indicating
that he was being assigned to a particular client. Therefore, Ibon was still
constructively dismissed.

Further, Ibon’s refusal to acceot reinstatement did not validate the

constructive dismissal because his refusal was made AFTER the filing of the
case for illegal dismissal.