Paglabag ng kumpanya sa prolonged floating status

ni PAO Chief Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | May 6, 2026

Dear Chief Acosta,

Nakapaghain na ako ng kaso laban sa dating kumpanya na pinagtatrabahuan ko nang malaman kong hanggang anim na buwan diumano maaaring ilagay ng kumpanya ang empleyado sa floating status. May pag-asa po bang umusad ang kaso? Maaari pa rin bang mapanagot ang kumpanya? — Oh

---

Dear Oh,

Ang pansamantalang “off detail” o “floating status” ay   ang   panahon  kung  saan walang bakanteng posisyon na maaaring maitalaga o maibigay sa empleyado. Hindi ito kaagad maituturing na pagtanggal sa trabaho, dahil ang pagtatalaga ng empleyado ay pangunahing nakadepende sa mga kontratang pinasok ng mga ahensya kasama ng kanilang kliyente, hangga’t hindi magpapatuloy ang naturang katayuan nang higit sa isang makatwirang panahon. Kapag ang floating status ay tumagal ng higit sa anim (6) na buwan, ang empleyado ay maaaring ituring na constructively dismissed.

Kaugnay nito, ang sagot sa iyong katanungan ay maaaring makita sa Andrei Nicholette Sagarino vs. Toplis Solutions, Inc., G.R. No. 267379, 15 Oktubre 2025, sa panulat ni Honorable Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, kung saan pinasiyahan ng ating Korte Suprema ang mga sumusunod:

“Placing employees on ‘floating status’ or temporary ‘off-detail’ is a valid management prerogative, typically exercised by security agencies reliant on service contracts. The Court explained the nature of ‘floating status,’ as understood in the context of security agencies, xxx.

While a complaint for illegal dismissal filed prior to the lapse of the six-month period and/or the actual dismissal of the employee is generally considered as prematurely filed, nothing precludes the employers from giving the employee/s new assignments during the pendency of the case before the labor arbiter. An employer’s failure to offer reinstatement or reassignment to an employee placed on floating status, even during the pendency of the labor dispute constitutes constructive dismissal. As the Court explained in MegaForce Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Lactao:

Temporary ‘off-detail’ or the period of time security guards are made to wait until they are transferred or assigned to a new post or client does not constitute constructive dismissal as their assignments primarily depend on the contracts entered into by the security agencies with third parties. Indeed, the Court has repeatedly recognized that ‘off-detailing’ is not equivalent to dismissal, so long as such status does not continue beyond a reasonable time; when such a ‘floating status’ lasts for more than six months, the employee may be considered to have been constructively dismissed.

However, in the present case, while the charge of illegal dismissal may have been premature because Lactao has not been given a new assignment or temporary ‘off-detail’ for a period of seven days only when he amended his complaint, the continued failure of Megaforce to offer him a new assignment during the proceedings of the case before the LA and beyond the reasonable six-month period makes it liable for constructive dismissal.

Here, although TSI, as agreed by the CA, asserted that it sent Andrei an invitation to report to work on August 16, 2019, offered her a chance to return during the SENA conference, and issued a notice for her to return on February 4, 2020, such notices do not suffice to alter Andrei’s floating status. There is no proof that the notices state a specific client to which Andrei would be assigned, rendering them mere general return-to-work orders. As such, they do not absolve TSI of liability for constructive dismissal.

The specificity requirement for return-to-work orders is reflected in several cases ruled upon by this Court. On numerous occasions, the Court has emphasized that a new assignment must be made to a specific client. A general return-to-work order, without such specificity, is insufficient.   

Thus, based on the foregoing, the Court is compelled to rule that TSI constructively dismissed Andrei. There is no evidence that Andrei was assigned to a specific client during the pendency of the labor case. At most, TSI issued general return-to-work orders, which did not interrupt the duration of Andrei’s floating status.”

Maituturing  na premature o  napaaga ang kasong illegal dismissal kung inihain ito sa loob ng panahon na hindi pa lumalagpas ng anim na buwan na nailagay ang empleyado sa floating status. Sa ganitong sitwasyon, maaaring ma-dismiss o mabalewala ang kaso. 

Sa kabilang banda, walang pumipigil sa employer na magbigay ng bagong assignment sa empleyado kahit naihain o nakabinbin na ang kaso. Malinaw na tinalakay sa nabanggit na kaso na ang patuloy na kabiguan ng kumpanya na magbigay o mag-alok sa empleyado ng bagong assignment, kahit na nakabinbin na ang kaso, at lagpas na sa makatwirang anim na buwan, ay maaaring mapanagot para sa constructive dismissal.

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay. 

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.