EAGLE STAR SECURITY SERVICES, INC. v. BONOFACIO L.

MIRANDO
594 SCRA 450 (2009), SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.)
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 Stars
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 arbiters 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 offdetail, 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 Stars 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 Stars 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 Stars
clients or that there was a request from the client-bank, where Mirando was last
posted and which continued to hire Eagle Stars 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.