EAGLE STAR SECURITY SERVICES, INC. VS BONOFACIO L. MIRANDO

EAGLE STAR SECURITY SERVICES, INC.

VS

BONOFACIO L. MIRANDO
594 SCRA 450 (2009)

For “off-detail” to be valid, the employer must show and prove that there was lack of available posts.

Bonifacio Mirando was hired by Eagle Star Security Services, Inc. (Eagle Star) as a security guard. When he reported for work, he was told by the detachment commander not to report for duty as instructed by the head office. Mirando called the head office and was told that he was removed from duty by Eagle Star’s operations manager Ernesto Agodilla. As Mirando was thereafter no longer asked to report for duty, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Eagle Star before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

Eagle Star alleged that Mirando went on absence without official leave (AWOL) and had not thereafter reported for work drawing it to send him a notice to explain his absence but Mirando failed to respond. It further alleged that in a Memorandum sent to Agodilla, the detachment commander reported that Mirando pulled out his uniform and that according to him, he ―would render voluntary resignation.‖

The labor arbiter found that Mirando was illegally dismissed. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision. On appeals, the CA affirmed the judgment of the NLRC.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding the dismissal illegal

HELD:
The persistence of Mirando to resume his duties, not to mention his immediate filing of the illegal dismissal complaint, should dissipate any doubt that he did not abandon his job.

Clutching at straws, Eagle Star argues that Mirando was on temporary ―off-detail,‖ the period of time a security guard is made to wait until he is transferred or assigned to a new post or client; and since Eagle Star’s business is primarily dependent on contracts entered into with third parties, the temporary ―off-detail‖ of Mirando does not amount to dismissal as long as the period does not exceed 6 months, following Art. 286 of the Labor Code.

Eagle Star’s citation of Article 286 of the Labor Code is misplaced. In the present case, there is no showing that there was lack of available posts at Eagle Star’s clients or that there was a request from the client-bank, where Mirando was last posted and which continued to hire Eagle Star’s services, to replace Mirando with another. Eagle Star suddenly prevented him from reporting on his tour of duty at the bank on December 15, 2001 and had not thereafter asked him to report for duty.