G.R. No. 202090. September 9, 2015.* VOL.

770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 287

  ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing
ICT MARKETING SERVICES, INC. (now known as SYKES Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
MARKETING SERVICES, INC.), petitioner, vs. MARIPHIL lent rank, level or salary without break in the service or a lateral
L. SALES, respondent. movement from one position to another of equivalent rank or salary;
Labor Law; Management Prerogative; Under the doctrine of (b) the employer has the inherent right to transfer or reassign an
management prerogative, every employer has the inherent right to employee for legitimate business purposes; (c) a transfer becomes
regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects unlawful where it is motivated by discrimination or bad faith or is
of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working effected as a form of punishment or is a demotion without sufficient
methods, the time, place and manner of work, work supervision, cause; (d) the employer must be able to show that the transfer is not
transfer of employees, layoff of workers, and discipline, dismissal, unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee.
and recall of employees.—Under the doctrine of management Same; Call Center Agents; Call center agents are subjected to
prerogative, every employer has the inherent right to regulate, conditions that adversely affect their physical, mental and emotional
according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of health; exposed to extreme stress and pressure at work by having to
employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, address the customers’ needs and insure their satisfaction, while
the time, place and manner of work, work supervision, transfer of simultaneously being conscious of the need to insure efficiency at
employees, layoff of workers, and discipline, dismissal, and recall of work by improving productivity and a high level of service;
employees. The only limitations to the exercise of this prerogative subjected to excessive control and strict surveillance by
are those imposed by labor laws and the principles of equity and management; exposed to verbal abuse from customers; suffer social
substantial justice. While the law imposes many obligations upon the alienation precisely because they work the graveyard shift — while
employer, nonetheless, it also protects the employer’s right to expect family and friends are at rest, they are working, and when they are
from its employees not only good performance, adequate work, and at rest, family and friends are up and about; and they work at a
diligence, but also good conduct and loyalty. In fact, the Labor Code quick-paced environment and under difficult circumstances owing to
does not excuse employees from complying with valid company progressive demands and ambitious quotas/targets set by
policies and reasonable regulations for their governance and management.—Respondent’s work as a CSR — which is essentially
guidance. Concerning the transfer of employees, these are the that of a call center agent — is not easy. For one, she was made to
following jurisprudential guidelines: (a) a transfer is a movement work the graveyard shift — that is, from late at night or midnight
from one position to another of equiva- until dawn or early morning. This certainly takes a toll on anyone’s
physical health. Indeed, call center agents are subjected to conditions
_______________ that adversely affect their physical, mental and emotional health;
exposed to extreme stress and pressure at work by having to address
*  SECOND DIVISION. the customers’ needs and insure their satisfaction, while
simultaneously being conscious of the need to insure efficiency at
 
work by improving productivity and a high level of service;
  subjected to excessive control and strict surveillance by
287
management; exposed to verbal abuse from customers; suffer social
alienation precisely because they work the graveyard shift — while account. And, as earlier stated, respondent’s “attendance and
family and friends are at rest, they are working, and when they are at punctuality issues” were attributable to petitioner’s indifference,
rest, family and friends are up and about; and they work at a quick- inaction, and lack of sensitivity in failing to timely address
paced environment and under difficult circumstances owing to respondent’s complaint. It should share the blame for respondent’s
progressive demands and ambitious quotas/targets set by resultant delinquencies. Thus, in causing respondent’s transfer,
management. To top it all, they are not exactly well-paid for the petitioner clearly acted in bad faith and with discrimination,
work they have to do and the conditions they have to endure. insensibility and disdain; the transfer was effected as a form of
Respondent’s written query about the prizes and incentives is not punishment for her raising a valid grievance related to her work.
Furthermore, said transfer was obviously unreasonable, not to
  mention contrary to experience, logic, and good business sense. This
  being the case, the transfer amounted to constructive dismissal.
288 Same; Same; Same; Floating Status; In placing respondent on
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED “floating status,” petitioner further acted arbitrarily and unfairly,
ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing making life unbearable for her.—In placing respondent on “floating
Services, Inc.) vs. Sales status,” petitioner further acted arbitrarily and unfairly, making life
exactly baseless and frivolous; the least petitioner could have unbearable for her. In so doing, it treated respondent as if she were a
done was to timely address it, if it cared about its employee’s new hire; it improperly disregarded her experience, status,
welfare. By failing to address respondent’s concerns, petitioner performance, and achievements in the company; and most
exhibited an indifference and lack of concern for its employees — importantly,
qualities that are diametrically antithetical to the spirit of the labor  
laws, which aim to protect the welfare of the workingman and foster  
harmonious relations between capital and labor. By its actions, 289
petitioner betrayed the manner it treats its employees.
VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 289
Same; Same; Constructive Dismissals; Transfer of Employees;
In causing respondent’s transfer, petitioner clearly acted in bad faith ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing
and with discrimination, insensibility and disdain; the transfer was Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
effected as a form of punishment for her raising a valid grievance respondent was illegally deprived of her salary and other
related to her work. Furthermore, said transfer was obviously emoluments. For her single absence during training for the Bank of
unreasonable, not to mention contrary to experience, logic, and America account, she was refused certification, and as a result, she
good business sense. This being the case, the transfer amounted to was placed on floating status and her salary was withheld. Clearly,
constructive dismissal.—Thus, the only conceivable reason why this was an act of discrimination and unfairness considering that she
petitioner transferred respondent to another account is the fact that was not an inexperienced new hire, but a promising and award-
she openly and bravely complained about the supposed anomalies in winning employee who was more than eager to succeed within the
the Washington Mutual account; it is not her “derogatory record” or company. This conclusion is not totally baseless, and is rooted in her
her “attendance and punctuality issues,” which are insignificant and outstanding performance at the Washington Mutual account and her
thus irrelevant to her overall performance in the Washington Mutual complaint regarding the incentives, which only proves her zeal,
positive work attitude, and drive to achieve financial success through Same; Same; Same; Backwages; Separation Pay; In case of
hard work. But instead of rewarding her, petitioner unduly punished constructive dismissal, the employee is entitled to full backwages,
her; instead of inspiring her, petitioner dashed her hopes and dreams; inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary
in return for her industry, idealism, positive outlook and fervor, equivalent, as well as separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.—With
petitioner left her with a legacy of, and awful examples in, office the foregoing pronouncements, an award of indemnity in favor of
politicking, intrigue, and internecine schemes. respondent should be forthcoming. In case of constructive dismissal,
Same; Same; Same; Same; The placing of an employee on the employee is entitled to full backwages, inclusive of allowances,
“floating status” presupposes, among others, that there is less work and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, as well as separation
than there are employees; but if petitioner continued to hire new pay in lieu of reinstatement. The readily determinable amounts, as
Customer Service Representatives/Technical Support computed by the Labor Arbiter and correspondingly reviewed and
Representatives (CSRs/TSRs), then surely there is a surplus of work corrected by the appellate court, should be accorded finality and
available for its existing employees: there is no need at all to place deemed binding on this Court.
respondent on floating status.—As correctly argued by respondent,
there is no basis to place her on “floating status” in the first place PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and
since petitioner continued to hire new CSRs/TSRs during the period, resolution of the Court of Appeals.
as shown by its paid advertisements and placements in leading The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
newspapers seeking to hire new CSRs/TSRs and other employees.   Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Relaga & Cruz for
True enough, the placing of an employee on “floating status” petitioner.
presupposes, among others, that there is less work than there are   David I. Gadit, Jr. for respondent.
employees; but if petitioner continued to hire new CSRs/TSRs, then
surely there is a surplus of work available for its existing employees: DEL CASTILLO, J.:
there is no need at all to place respondent on floating status. If any,  
respondent — with her experience, knowledge, familiarity with the This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails: 1) the
workings of the company, and achievements — should be the first to January 10, 2012 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
be given work or posted with new clients/accounts, and not new hires C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 109860 nullifying and setting aside the
who have no experience working for petitioner or who have no February 16, 20093 and May 20, 20094 Resolutions of the
related experience at all. Once more, experience, common sense, and National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC
logic go against the position of petitioner.
CN. 07-00240408(7)/(8) and reinstating with modification the
  April 30, 2008 Decision5 of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC-NCR
  Case 
290 _______________
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
1  Rollo, pp. 15-63.
ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing 2  Id., at pp. 66-72; penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino and
Services, Inc.) vs. Sales concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Mariflor P.
Punzalan-Castillo.
3  Id., at pp. 377-381.
 4  Id., at pp. 408-409. On July 3, 2007, respondent wrote to Glen Odom (Odom)
5  Id., at pp. 304-314.
— petitioner’s Vice President — complaining about supposed
  irregularities in the handling of funds entrusted to petitioner by
  Washington Mutual which were intended for distribution to
291 outstanding Washington Mutual CSRs and TSRs as prizes
VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 291 _______________

ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing 6  Id., at pp. 71-77; penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino and
Services, Inc.) vs. Sales concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo and Ramon M.
No. 10-11004-07; and 2) the CA’s May 28, 2012 Bato, Jr.
7  Id., at pp. 78-103.
Resolution6 denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration7 of 8  Id., at p. 173.
the herein assailed Decision.
   
Factual Antecedents  
  292
Petitioner ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (ICT) — now 292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
known as Sykes Marketing Services, Inc. — is a duly ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing
registered domestic corporation engaged in the business of Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
providing outsourced customer relations management and and incentives. However, no action appears to have been taken
business process outsourcing solutions to various clients in on her complaint.
government and in the financial services, insurance, Respondent was then transferred to the Bank of America
telecommunications, health care, information technology, account on July 30, 2007. Without prior notice to respondent,
media, energy, and hospitality industries. petitioner scheduled her for training from July 30 to August 6,
On February 22, 2006, petitioner hired respondent Mariphil 2007 on the very same day of her transfer. On the third day of
L. Sales as its Customer Service Representative (CSR) or training (August 1), respondent was unable to attend. When she
Technical Support Representative (TSR), and assigned her to reported for training the next day, respondent was informed
its Capital One account. On August 21, 2006, respondent that she could not be certified to handle calls for Bank of
became a regular employee, and her monthly base salary was America due to her failure to complete the training. From then
increased to P16,350.00 and she was given monthly on, respondent was placed on “floating status” and was not
transportation and meal allowances. given any work assignment.
On February 21, 2007, respondent was assigned to the In a September 28, 2007 letter9 to petitioner’s Human
Washington Mutual account, where she was awarded with a Resource (HR) Manager, respondent tendered her resignation
certificate for being the “Top Converter/Seller (Second Place)” from work, effective upon receipt of the letter. Respondent
for the month of April 2007.8 wrote:
 I was forced to resign due to the reason that my employment with a certificate as “top converter (seller)” for the month of
was made on “floating status” effective August 4, 2007 and up April and was supposed to be included again in the top three
to present (almost two months). I haven’t receive [sic] any highest converter[s] for the month of May, but unfortunately
notice from you or the HR department to report for work irregularities were committed, that is why I filed the
despite my repeated follow-up [with] your office thru aforementioned complaint [with] your office.
telephone and mobile phone text messages. Hence, I consider On August 1, 2007, a few days after my transfer [to] Bank of
your inaction to my follow-up as an indirect termination of my America, my coach, angelo [sic], informed me that I will be
work with ICT. having a training on that same day with Bank of America
The reason I was placed [on] floating status is that, I was which is really unexpected. I was not given a notice in
absent during the third day of my training with Bank of advance about the training. My coach informed me only three
America, the account to which I was transferred from hours before the said training. Later on during my training
Washington Mutual (WaMu). However, my absence during with Bank of America I was [placed on floating status]
such period was justified by the fact that I was sick and I need indefinitely due to a single absence even though I am a regular
[sic] to undergo a medical checkup on that date. employee having worked in ICT for almost two years.
Furthermore, I see my transfer from WaMu Account to Bank Another instance [of] discrimination [sic] and bad faith on the
of America and the continued floating status of my work was part of ICT management is that, all my fellow agents who
prompted by the fact that I lodged a complaint were [placed on floating status] for the same reason were all
ordered to return to work except me [sic]. Moreover, ICT is
_______________
continuously hiring TSR’s which only shows that there are
9  Id., at pp. 147-148. still accounts open or work available in ICT. However despite
the availability of work, I was still on floating status.
  Based on the aforementioned facts and circumstance[s], it is
  very clear that the harassment, pressure, and indefinite
293 floating of my employment with ICT are retaliatory acts
VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 293 perpetrated by the company because of my complaint/request
for investigation on the irregularities being committed by
ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing
certain company officials.
Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
against managers/supervisors assigned in WaMu account  
regarding irregularities in the handling of funds given by ICT  
clients which were supposed to be distributed as prizes to 294
TSR’s assigned with WaMu. After the filing of the said 294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
complaint, through your office, I was transferred to another ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing
account (Bank of America) for no apparent reason. I was not
even included in the original list of those who were supposed Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
to be transferred because my performance record with WaMu Thus, I can no longer bear the above mentioned abuses and
is satisfactory as proven by the fact that I was even awarded discrimination committed against me by ICT management.
 Therefore, I have no option but to sever my relationship with 16  Id., at pp. 133-137.
the company, as my continued floating status had already
prejudiced me emotionally and financially.
10
 
 
  295
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 295
  ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing
On October 2, 2007, respondent filed a complaint for Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
constructive dismissal against petitioner and Odom before the bationary status, and not to regularized employees. In any case,
NLRC NCR, Quezon City, docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. the “New Hire Training Bay” used by petitioner was for the
10-11004-07. Capital One program. She also pointed out that during her
In her Position Paper,11 Reply,12 Rejoinder,13 and indefinite suspension or “floating status,” petitioner continued
Surrejoinder,14 respondent claimed that for complaining about to hire new CSRs, as shown by its newspaper advertisements
the supposed irregularities in the Washington Mutual account, during the period.17 Finally, she asserted that her resignation
petitioner discriminated against her and unduly punished her. was not voluntary, but was forced upon her by petitioner as a
Although she was not included in the original list of result of its unlawful acts. Thus, respondent prayed for the
CSRs/TSRs for program transfer, she was transferred to recovery of backwages, separation pay, P100,000.00 combined
another account, and then placed on “floating status,” which is moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees equivalent
tantamount to suspending her indefinitely without due process, to 10 percent (10%) of the total award.
despite her satisfactory performance. Respondent averred that In its Position Paper,18 Reply,19 Rejoinder,20 and
petitioner’s claim of multiple absences is not true, because not Surrejoinder,  petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the
21

once was she penalized therefor, assuming such charge is true. complaint, arguing that respondent was transferred from the
Respondent also alleged that her one-day absence during the Washington Mutual account as an exercise of management
training for the Bank of America program cannot justify her initiative or prerogative, and due to infractions 22 committed by
being placed on a “floating status” because the “no-absence her, as well as attendance and punctuality issues that arose. It
during training” requirement cited by petitioner — using her claimed that respondent could not be certified for the Bank of
employment contract15 and the “New Hire Training Bay”16 as America account for failing to complete the training. It
bases — applies only to new hires on pro- maintained that respondent was placed on standby status only,
_______________
and not suspended or constructively dismissed. In fact, she was
10  Id. directed to report to its HR department, but she did not do so. It
11  Id., at pp. 149-162. also insisted that respondent resigned voluntarily. It denied
12  Id., at pp. 203-223. committing any act of discrimination or any other act
13  Id., at pp. 251-269. _______________
14  Id., at pp. 286-302.
15  Id., at pp. 127-132.
 17  Id., at pp. 232-236. was indeed remised of [sic] her duties due to her punctuality and
18  Id., at pp. 104-126. attendance problem of committing twelve (12) absences alone
19  Id., at pp. 183-196.
incurred in July 2007 [sic], why was there no disciplinary action
20  Id., at pp. 237-248.
21  Id., at pp. 270-278. taken against her like reprimand or warning[?]
22  a) June 23, 2006 — respondent was issued a Formal Written Warning x x x x
for giving misleading information to a customer on June 22, 2006. And its effect, complainant is entitled to her claim of separation
b) July 12, 2006 — she was again warned for selling to the wrong person pay, moral and exemplary damages of P50,000.00 pesos [sic]
on June 27, 2006. including an award of attorney’s fees.
c) Another written warning on March 20, 2007 for wrong disposition of a WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered
call.
ordering the respondents to pay complainant of [sic] one month pay
  per year of service as separation pay in the total amount of
  P32,700.00, P50,000.00 moral and exemplary damages plus 10% of
296 the award as attorney’s fees, hereunder computed:
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED _______________
ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing
23  Id., at pp. 304-314; penned by Labor Arbiter Antonio R. Macam.
Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
which rendered respondent’s employment impossible,  
unreasonable or unlikely. Finally, it claimed that prior notice of  
her transfer to the Bank of America account was made through 297
an electronic mail message sent to her; and that respondent has VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 297
no cause of action since she resigned voluntarily, and thus ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing
could not have been illegally dismissed. Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
On April 30, 2008, the Labor Arbiter rendered a I    Separation Pay
Decision23 finding complainant to have been constructively           2/21/06 - 8/4/07   =  2 yrs.
dismissed and awarding separation pay, moral and exemplary       P16,350.00 x 2 yrs. =    P32,700.00
damages, and attorney’s fees to respondent. The Labor Arbiter II   Damages                      P50,000.00
held:                                       P82,700.00
x x x Complainant was indeed constructively dismissed from her      10% Attorney’s Fees    P8,270.00
employment and she quitted [sic] because her continued employment                                           P90,970.00
thereat is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely.
SO ORDERED.24
Complainant’s resignation was sparked by her transfer of
assignment and eventual placing her [sic] by the respondent  
company of [sic] a “on floating” status. Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission
x x x [T]here was no x x x evidence x x x that complainant’s  
transfer was due to the request of a client. Further, if complainant
 Petitioner appealed before the NLRC arguing that the Labor that she attended only two (2) days of training on July 30 and 31,
Arbiter erred in ruling that respondent was constructively 2007, did not report on August 1, 2007 and again reported for
dismissed. It also argued that Odom was not personally liable training on August 2, 2007. It was then that ICT’s Operations
as he was merely acting in good faith and within his authority Subject Matter Expert, Ms. Suzette Lualhati, informed the
complainant that she cannot be certified for the program because she
as corporate officer.
failed to complete the number of training days, and there was a need
Respondent likewise interposed an appeal25 arguing that the for her to report to Human Resources for further instructions. As the
award of backwages should be computed from the date of her complainant did not report to Human Resources, and due to her
dismissal until finality of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision; and that derogatory record, the respondent company could not find another
the proportionate share of her 13th month pay should be paid to program where the complainant could be transferred.
her as well. From what has been narrated above, We come to the conclusion
On February 16, 2009, the NLRC issued a that the respondent company cannot be faulted for placing the
Resolution,26 declaring as follows: complainant on “floating status.” And there does not appear to be
We reverse. any ill will or bad faith that can be attributed to the respondent.
Upon an examination of the pleadings on file, We find that in the Finally, it is well to emphasize that the complainant tendered her
past the complainant had been transferred from one program to resignation on October 1, 2007. There is no evidence that the
another without any objection on her part. Insofar as the instant case complainant has presented that would indicate that duress or force
is concerned, it appears that the complainant, aside from having been has been exerted on her.
given a warning for wrong disposition of a call, had been All told, We are of the opinion that the findings of the Labor
Arbiter are in stark contrast to the evidence on record.
_______________
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision appealed
24  Id., at pp. 312-314.
from is hereby reversed and set aside. Addordingly [sic], a new one
25  Id., at pp. 348-355. is entered dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.
26  Id., at pp. 377-381; penned by Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III and SO ORDERED. 27

concurred in by Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr.

_______________
 
27  Id., at pp. 380-381.
 
298  
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED  
ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing 299
Services, Inc.) vs. Sales VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 299
absent or usually late in reporting for work, constraining the ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing
respondent ICT to transfer her to another program/account. Required Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
of the complainant was for her to undergo Product Training for the Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 28 but in a
program from July 30 to August 6, 2007, and the records indicate
May 20, 2009 Resolution,29 the motion was denied.
   
Ruling of the Court of Appeals 300
  300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
In a Petition for Certiorari30 filed with the CA and docketed ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing
as C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 109860, respondent sought a reversal of Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
the February 16, 2009 and May 20, 2009 Resolutions of the transfer to another account. Prior to her reassignment, petitioner’s
NLRC. annual performance merited increase in her salary effective February
Petitioner filed its Comment,31 to which respondent 2007 and was also awarded a certificate of achievement for
interposed a Reply.32 performing well in April 2007. Her transfer was also abrupt as there
On January 10, 2012, the CA issued the assailed Decision was no written transfer agreement informing her of the same and its
containing the following pronouncement: requirements unlike her previous transfer from Capital One to
This Court finds the petition meritorious. Washington Mutual account. It is therefore difficult to see the
While it is true that management has the prerogative to transfer reasonableness, urgency, or genuine business necessity to transfer
employees, the exercise of such right should not be motivated by petitioner to a new account. While it may be true that petitioner has
discrimination, made in bad faith, or effected as a form of attendance and punctuality issues, her overall performance as a
punishment or demotion without sufficient cause. When the transfer CSR/TSR cannot be said to be below par given the annual merit
is unreasonable, unlikely, inconvenient, impossible, or prejudicial to increase and the certificate of achievement awarded to her. If indeed,
the employee, it already amounts to constructive dismissal. In private respondent corporation had trouble transferring the petitioner
constructive dismissal, the employer has the burden of proving that to another post because of her derogatory record, the corporation
the transfer and demotion of an employee are for just and valid could just have dismissed her for cause.
grounds, such as genuine business necessity. Should the employer After petitioner’s unjustified transfer, she was informed by
fail to overcome this burden of proof, the employee’s transfer shall private respondent corporation that she could not be “certified” or
be tantamount to unlawful constructive dismissal. allowed to handle calls for the new account because of her absence
In the case at bench, private respondent corporation failed to during training. She was later placed on a floating status and was not
discharge this burden of proof considering the circumstances given another post.
surrounding the petitioner’s July 2007 The Court considers placing the petitioner on a floating status as
another unjustified action of the private respondent corporation
_______________ prejudicial to petitioner as employee. In this case, except for private
respondent corporation’s bare assertion that petitioner no longer
28  Id., at pp. 382-404. reported to the human resources department as instructed, no proof
29  Id., at pp. 408-409; penned by Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III and
concurred in by Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr.
was offered to prove that petitioner intended to sever the employer-
30  Id., at pp. 411-447. employee relationship. Private respondent corporation also offered
31  Id., at pp. 451-491. no credible explanation why it failed to provide a new assignment to
32  Id., at pp. 492-528. petitioner. Its assertion that it is petitioner’s derogatory record which
made it difficult for the corporation to transfer her to another account
  despite its efforts is not sufficient to discharge the burden of proving
that there are no posts or no accounts available or willing to accept filing a resignation letter alone does not shift the burden of proof and
her. it is still incumbent upon the employer to prove that the employee
voluntarily resigned.
 
  _______________
301
33  659 Phil. 362; 644 SCRA 299 (2011).
VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 301
ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing  
Services, Inc.) vs. Sales  
In Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. 302
Valderama,  the Supreme Court declared that due to the grim
33 302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
economic consequences to the employee of being placed on a ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing
floating status, the employer should bear the burden of proving that Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
there are no posts available to which the employee temporarily out of Therefore, we believe and so hold that petitioner was
work can be assigned. constructively dismissed from employment. Constructive dismissal
These acts by the private respondent corporation, of transferring exists when the resignation on the part of the employee was
petitioner to another account without sufficient cause and proper involuntary due to the harsh, hostile and unfavorable conditions set
notice and its subsequent failure to provide a new post for her for by the employer. The test for constructive dismissal is whether a
two months without credible explanation, constitute unjustified reasonable person in the employee’s position would feel compelled
actions prejudicial to the petitioner as an employee, making it to give up his employment under the prevailing circumstances. With
unbearable for her to continue employment. the decision of the private respondent corporation to transfer and to
Thus, petitioner opted to resign, albeit involuntarily. The thereafter placed [sic] her on floating status, petitioner felt that she
involuntariness of her resignation is evident in her letter which states was being discriminated and this perception compelled her to resign.
categorically: It is clear from her resignation letter that petitioner felt oppressed by
“I was forced to resign due to the reason that my employment was made the situation created by the private respondent corporation, and this
on ‘floating status’ effective August 4, 2007 and up to the present (almost
forced her to surrender her position.
two months) I haven’t receive [sic] any notice from you or the HR
department to report for work despite my repeated follow-up to your office Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, an employee who is
thru telephone and mobile phone text messages. Hence, I consider your unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement
inaction to my follow-up as an indirect termination of my work with ICT.” without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full
backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their
Further, petitioner immediately filed a complaint for illegal monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was
dismissal. Resignation, it has been held, is inconsistent with the withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
filing of a complaint. Thus, private respondent corporation’s mere As petitioner did not pray for reinstatement but only sought
assertion that petitioner voluntarily resigned without offering payment of money claims, the labor arbiter is correct in awarding
convincing evidence to prove it, is not sufficient to discharge the separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service.
burden of proving such assertion. It is worthy to note that the fact of We also do not find any cogent reason to disturb the award of
damages and attorney’s fees since we have found bad faith on the  
part of the private respondent corporation to abruptly [sic] transfer Petitioner submits that —
and place the petitioner on floating status. Individual respondent A.
Glen Odom is however, exonerated from any liability as there was no THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT
clear finding that he acted with malice or bad faith. Backwages and RESPONDENT’S TRANSFER WAS UNJUSTIFIED
other monetary benefits must also be included in compliance with the NOTWITHSTANDING EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT
above mentioned provision of labor law which shall be reckoned RESPONDENT WAS NOT DEMOTED AND WAS EVEN GIVEN
from the time her constructive dismissal took effect until the finality THE SAME RANK AND PAY.
of this decision.  
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolutions dated B.
February 16, 2009 and May 20, 2009 respec- THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT
RESPONDENT’S PLACEMENT UNDER FLOATING STATUS
  WAS TANTAMOUNT TO CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL AS
  THIS IS CONTRARY TO NUMEROUS DECISIONS OF THE
303
HONORABLE COURT.
VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 303
_______________
ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing
Services, Inc.) vs. Sales 34  Rollo, pp. 68-71.
tively, issued by the public respondent National Labor Relations 35  Id., at pp. 704-705.
Commission (NLRC) in NLRC CA No. 07-002404-08 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the Labor Arbiter  
dated April 30, 2008 is REINSTATED with MODIFICATION that  
the petitioner Mariphil L. Sales, be awarded backwages and other 304
monetary benefits from the date of her constructive dismissal up to 304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the finality of this Decision. ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing
SO ORDERED. 34
Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
  C.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT REINSTATED
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the same
LABOR ARBITER MACAM’S DECISION DATED 30 APRIL
was denied in a May 28, 2012 Resolution. Hence, the present 2008 WHICH DECLARED THAT RESPONDENT WAS
Petition. CONSTRUCTIVELY DISMISSED, NOTWITHSTANDING
In a November 11, 2013 Resolution,35 this Court resolved to EVIDENCE THAT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT RESPONDENT
give due course to the Petition. VOLUNTARILY RESIGNED.
 
D.
Issues
 THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing
RESPONDENT SEPARATION PAY, BACKWAGES, MORAL Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES. 36

ing status” is not tantamount to constructive dismissal, and the

  failure to place or transfer respondent to another account was
Petitioner’s Arguments due to her derogatory record, and not petitioner’s bad faith or
  inaction. It insists that the placing of an employee on “floating
Praying that the assailed CA dispositions be set aside and status” for up to six months is allowed in the event of a bona
that the NLRC’s February 16, 2009 and May 20, 2009 fide suspension of the operations or undertaking of a
Resolutions be reinstated instead, petitioner maintains in the business.38 In any event, respondent’s voluntary resignation
Petition and Reply37 that respondent’s transfer to another prior to the expiration of the allowable six-month “floating
account was done as a valid exercise of management status” period cannot constitute constructive dismissal, and her
prerogative, which allows it to regulate all aspects of immediate filing of the labor case thereafter is thus premature.
employment. Her transfer was done in good faith, and without Finally, petitioner posits that since there is no illegal dismissal
diminution in rank and salary. It contends that respondent knew but rather a voluntary relinquishment of respondent’s post, then
very well that any CSR/TSR may be transferred to another there is no basis for the pecuniary awards in her favor.
program/
account anytime for business reasons; in fact, respondent
herself was transferred from Capital One to Washington Respondent’s Arguments
Mutual, and she did not complain. Moreover, she knew as well  
that “schedule adherence” or attendance/punctuality is one of In her Comment39 praying for dismissal of the Petition and
the “metrics” or standards by which the performance of a CSR the corresponding affirmance of the assailed dispositions,
is measured, and that she failed to comply in this regard. It respondent insists that she was illegally dismissed. She
claims that the decision to place her on “floating status” instead reiterates that her transfer to the Bank of America account was
of dismissing her was an accommodation and should not be an undue penalty for her complaining about supposed
treated as an illegal or unjustified act; that being on “float- anomalies in the Washington Mutual account. She avers that
_______________ the documentary evidence of her supposed unauthorized
absences were manufactured to support petitioner’s false
36  Id., at p. 33.
37  Id., at pp. 753-770.
allegations and mislead this Court into believing that she was
delinquent at work. She argues that assuming that these
  absences were true, then they should have merited her
  dismissal for cause — yet the fact is she was not dismissed nor
305 punished for these supposed absences. She asserts that
VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 305
petitioner’s claim that she was transferred on the rather than continue to subject herself to petitioner’s
recommendation of a client is discrimination, insensibility, harassment, and disdain; and that
_______________ for such illegal acts, she is entitled to indemnity from
petitioner.
38  Citing Nippon Housing Phil., Inc. v. Leynes, 670 Phil. 495; 655 SCRA
77 (2011); Malig-on v. Equitable General Services, Inc., 636 Phil. 330; 622  
SCRA 326 (2010); and Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Our Ruling
Valderama, supra note 33. The Court denies the Petition.
39  Rollo, pp. 720-744. _______________

  40  Art. 286. When employment not deemed terminated.—The bona

  fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not
306 exceeding six (6) months, or the fulfillment by the employee of a military or
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED civic duty shall not terminate employment.
In all such cases, the employer shall reinstate the employee to his former
ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his
Services, Inc.) vs. Sales work not later than one (1) month from the resumption of operations of his
employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty.
untrue and self-serving, and is unjustified since the client has 41  377 Phil. 951; 320 SCRA 124 (1999).
no authority to order or recommend her transfer. She maintains
that her being placed on “floating status” was illegal, since a)  
there is no evidence to prove her alleged “attendance and  
punctuality issues,” and b) there was no bona fide suspension 307
of petitioner’s business or undertaking for a period not VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 307
exceeding six months, as prescribed under Article 286 of the ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing
Labor Code,40 which would justify the suspension of her Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
employment for up to six months. As enunciated in the Philip- Respondent’s Transfer
pine Industrial Security Agency Corp. v. Dapiton41 case which  
petitioner itself cited, Article 286 applies only when there is Under the doctrine of management prerogative, every employer
a bona fide suspension of the employer’s operation or has the inherent right to regulate, according to his own discretion and
undertaking for a period not exceeding six months, due to dire judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work
exigencies of the business that compel the employer to suspend assignments, working methods, the time, place and manner of work,
the employment of its workers. Respondent points out that work supervision, transfer of employees, layoff of workers, and
petitioner continued with its business, and worse, it in fact discipline, dismissal, and recall of employees. The only limitations to
continued to hire new CSRs/TSRs during the period of the exercise of this prerogative are those imposed by labor laws and
the principles of equity and substantial justice.
respondent’s suspension from work. In fine, respondent alleges
While the law imposes many obligations upon the employer,
that she was constructively dismissed and forced to resign, nonetheless, it also protects the employer’s right to expect from its
employees not only good performance, adequate work, and there should be no need to transfer respondent to the Bank of
diligence, but also good conduct and loyalty. In fact, the Labor Code America program; it could simply train new hires for that
does not excuse employees from complying with valid company program. Transferring respondent — an experienced employee
policies and reasonable regulations for their governance and who was already familiar with the Washington Mutual account,
guidance. and who even proved to be outstanding in handling the same —
Concerning the transfer of employees, these are the following
to another account means additional expenses for petitioner: it
jurisprudential guidelines: (a) a transfer is a movement from one
position to another of equivalent rank, level or salary without break would have to train respondent for the Bank of America
in the service or a lateral movement from one position to another of account, and train a new hire to take her place in the
equivalent rank or salary; (b) the employer has the inherent right to Washington Mutual account. This does not make sense; quite
transfer or reassign an employee for legitimate business purposes; (c) the contrary, it is impractical and entails more expense on
a transfer becomes unlawful where it is motivated by discrimination petitioner’s part. If respondent already knew her work at the
or bad faith or is effected as a form of punishment or is a demotion Washington Mutual account very well, then it is contrary to
without sufficient cause; (d) the employer must be able to show that experience and logic to transfer her to another account which
the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the she is not familiar with, there to start from scratch; this could
employee. 42
have been properly relegated to a new hire.
  There can be no truth to petitioner’s claim either that
While the prerogative to transfer respondent to another respondent’s transfer was made upon request of the client. If
account belonged to petitioner, it wielded the same unfairly. she was performing outstanding work and bringing in good
The business for the client, there is no reason — indeed it is beyond
_______________ experience and logic — to conclude that the client would seek
her transfer. Such a claim could only be fabricated. Truly:
42  Rural Bank of Cantilan, Inc. v. Julve, 545 Phil. 619, 624-625; 517 Experience which is the life of the law — as well as logic and
SCRA 17, 22-23 (2007).
common sense — militates against the petitioners’ cause. 44

 
 
308
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Moreover, as the appellate court correctly observed, even if
respondent had attendance and punctuality issues, her over-
ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing _______________
Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
evidence suggests that at the time respondent was transferred 43  Rollo, pp. 232-236.
44  Rongavilla v. Court of Appeals, 355 Phil. 721, 740; 294 SCRA 289, 307
from the Washington Mutual account to the Bank of America
(1998).
program, petitioner was hiring additional CSRs/TSRs.43 This
simply means that if it was then hiring new CSRs/TSRs, then  
   insure their satisfaction, while simultaneously being conscious
309 of the need to insure efficiency at work by improving
VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 309 productivity and a high level of service; subjected to excessive
ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing control and strict surveillance by management; exposed to
Services, Inc.) vs. Sales verbal abuse from customers; suffer social alienation precisely
all performance as a CSR/TSR was certainly far from because they work the graveyard shift — while family and
mediocre; on the contrary, she proved to be a top performer. friends are at rest, they are working, and when they are at rest,
And if it were true that respondent suddenly became lax by family and friends are up and about; and they work at a quick-
way of attendance in July 2007, it is not entirely her fault. This paced environment and under difficult cir-
may be attributed to petitioner’s failure to properly address her  
grievances relative to the supposed irregularities in the  
handling of funds entrusted to petitioner by Washington 310
Mutual which were intended for distribution to outstanding 310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Washington Mutual CSRs and TSRs as prizes and incentives. ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing
She wrote petitioner about her complaint on July 3, 2007; Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
however, no explanation was forthcoming from petitioner, and cumstances owing to progressive demands and ambitious
it was only during these proceedings — or after a case had quotas/targets set by management. To top it all, they are not
already been filed — that petitioner belatedly and for no other exactly well-paid for the work they have to do and the
useful purpose attempted to address her concerns. This may conditions they have to endure. Respondent’s written query
have caused a bit of disillusionment on the part of respondent, about the prizes and incentives is not exactly baseless and
which led her to miss work for a few days in July 2007. Her frivolous; the least petitioner could have done was to timely
grievance should have been addressed by petitioner; after all, address it, if it cared about its employee’s welfare. By failing to
they were serious accusations, and have a bearing on the address respondent’s concerns, petitioner exhibited an
CSRs/TSRs’ overall performance in the Washington Mutual indifference and lack of concern for its employees — qualities
account. that are diametrically antithetical to the spirit of the labor laws,
Respondent’s work as a CSR — which is essentially that of which aim to protect the welfare of the workingman and foster
a call center agent — is not easy. For one, she was made to harmonious relations between capital and labor. By its actions,
work the graveyard shift — that is, from late at night or petitioner betrayed the manner it treats its employees.
midnight until dawn or early morning. This certainly takes a Thus, the only conceivable reason why petitioner
toll on anyone’s physical health. Indeed, call center agents are transferred respondent to another account is the fact that she
subjected to conditions that adversely affect their physical, openly and bravely complained about the supposed anomalies
mental and emotional health; exposed to extreme stress and in the Washington Mutual account; it is not her “derogatory
pressure at work by having to address the customers’ needs and record” or her “attendance and punctuality issues,” which are
insignificant and thus irrelevant to her overall performance in offer involving a demotion in rank and diminution in pay. Likewise,
the Washington Mutual account. And, as earlier stated, constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination,
respondent’s “attendance and punctuality issues” were insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so
attributable to petitioner’s indifference, inaction, and lack of unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to
forego with his continued employment.  (Emphasis and 45
sensitivity in failing to timely address respondent’s complaint.
underscoring supplied)
It should share the blame for respondent’s resultant
delinquencies.  
Thus, in causing respondent’s transfer, petitioner clearly The instant case can be compared to the situation
acted in bad faith and with discrimination, insensibility and in Veterans Security Agency, Inc. v. Gonzalvo, Jr.,46 where the
disdain; the transfer was effected as a form of punishment for employee concerned — a security guard who was brave
her raising a valid grievance related to her work. Furthermore, enough to complain about his employer’s failure to remit its
said transfer was obviously unreasonable, not to mention employees’ Social Security System premiums — was “tossed
contrary to experience, logic, and good business sense. This around” and finally placed on floating status for no valid
being the case, the transfer amounted to constructive dismissal. reason. Taking the poor employee’s side, this Court declared:
The managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be True, it is the inherent prerogative of an employer to transfer and
exercised without grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the reassign its employees to meet the requirements of its business. Be
basic elements of that as it may, the prerogative of the management to transfer its
employees
 
  _______________
311
45  Peckson v. Robinsons Supermarket Corporation, G.R. No. 198534, July
VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 311 3, 2013, 700 SCRA 668, 681, citing Blue Dairy Corporation v. National Labor
ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing Relations Commission, 373 Phil. 179, 186; 314 SCRA 401, 408-409 (1999).
Services, Inc.) vs. Sales 46  514 Phil. 488; 478 SCRA 298 (2005).
justice and fair play. Having the right should not be confused with  
the manner in which that right is exercised. Thus, it cannot be used  
as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable 312
worker. In particular, the employer must be able to show that
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to
the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing
diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Should Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
the employer fail to overcome this burden of proof, the must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion. The exercise of
employee’s transfer shall be tantamount to constructive the prerogative should not defeat an employee’s right to security of
dismissal, which has been defined as a quitting because continued tenure. The employer’s privilege to transfer its employees to
employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; as an
different workstations cannot be used as a subterfuge to rid itself of Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
an undesirable worker. ance on the job, but on their ability to toe the line set by their
Here, riled by respondent’s consecutive filing of complaint employer and endure in silence the flagrant incursion of their
against it for nonpayment of SSS contributions, VSAI had been rights, zealously protected by our labor laws and by the
tossing respondent to different stations thereafter. From his Constitution, no less.  (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
47

assignment at University of Santo Tomas for almost a year, he was

assigned at the OWWA main [o]ffice in Pasig where he served for  
more than three years. After three years at the OWWA main office,
Respondent’s Floating Status
he was transferred to the OWWA Pasay City parking lot knowing  
that the security services will end forthwith. VSAI even concocted
In placing respondent on “floating status,” petitioner further
the reason that he had to be assigned somewhere because his spouse
acted arbitrarily and unfairly, making life unbearable for her. In
was already a lady guard assigned at the OWWA main office.
so doing, it treated respondent as if she were a new hire; it
Inasmuch as respondent was single at that time, this was obviously a
improperly disregarded her experience, status, performance,
mere facade to [get] rid of respondent who was no longer in VSAIs
good graces. and achievements in the company; and most importantly,
respondent was illegally deprived of her salary and other
The only logical conclusion from the foregoing discussion is
that the VSAI constructively dismissed the respondent. This emoluments. For her single absence during training for the
Bank of America account, she was refused certification, and as
ruling is in rhyme with the findings of the Court of Appeals and the
a result, she was placed on floating status and her salary was
NLRC. Dismissal is the ultimate penalty that can be meted to an
employee. Inasmuch as petitioners failed to adduce clear andwithheld. Clearly, this was an act of discrimination and
convincing evidence to support the legality of respondent’s unfairness considering that she was not an inexperienced new
dismissal, the latter is entitled to reinstatement and backwages as a
hire, but a promising and award-winning employee who was
necessary consequence. However, reinstatement is no longer feasible
more than eager to succeed within the company. This
in this case because of the palpable strained relations, thus,
conclusion is not totally baseless, and is rooted in her
separation pay is awarded in lieu of reinstatement.
x x x x
outstanding performance at the Washington Mutual account
and her complaint regarding the incentives, which only proves
Indeed, the Court ought to deny this petition lest the wheels
her zeal, positive work attitude, and drive to achieve financial
of justice for aggrieved workingmen grind to a halt. We ought to
success through hard work. But instead of rewarding her,
abate the culture of employers bestowing security of tenure to
employees, not on the basis of the latter’s perform- petitioner unduly punished her; instead of inspiring her,
petitioner dashed her hopes and dreams; in return for her
  industry, idealism, positive outlook and fervor, petitioner left
  her with a legacy of, and awful examples in, office politicking,
313
intrigue, and internecine schemes.
VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 313 In effect, respondent’s transfer to the Bank of America
ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing account was not only unreasonable, unfair, inconvenient, and
prejudicial to her; it was effectively a demotion in rank and In Nippon Housing Phil., Inc. v. Leynes, supra note 38 at p. 506; p. 87, this
Court declared that the concept of “floating status” under the Labor Code
diminution of her salaries, privileges and other benefits. She applies not only to security guards but to “other industries” as well. Thus:
_______________
x x x Traditionally invoked by security agencies when guards are
temporarily sidelined from duty while waiting to be transferred or
47  Id., at pp. 500-505; pp. 309-314. assigned to a new post or client, Article 286 of the Labor Code has been
applied to other industries when, as a consequence of the bona
  fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking, an
  employer is constrained to put employees on floating status for a period
  not exceeding six months. x x x
was unfairly treated as a new hire, and eventually her
 
salaries, privileges and other benefits were withheld when
 
petitioner refused to certify her and instead placed her on 315
floating status. Far from being an “accommodation” as VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 315
petitioner repeatedly insists, respondent became the victim of a
ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing
series of illegal punitive measures inflicted upon her by the
former. Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
Besides, as correctly argued by respondent, there is no basis hire new CSRs/TSRs, then surely there is a surplus of work
to place her on “floating status” in the first place since available for its existing employees: there is no need at all to
petitioner continued to hire new CSRs/TSRs during the period, place respondent on floating status. If any, respondent — with
as shown by its paid advertisements and placements in leading her experience, knowledge, familiarity with the workings of the
newspapers seeking to hire new CSRs/TSRs and other company, and achievements — should be the first to be given
employees.48 True enough, the placing of an employee on work or posted with new clients/accounts, and not new hires
“floating status” presupposes, among others, that there is less who have no experience working for petitioner or who have no
work than there are employees;49 but if petitioner continued to related experience at all. Once more, experience, common
_______________ sense, and logic go against the position of petitioner.
The CA could not be more correct in its pronouncement that
48  Rollo, pp. 232-236. placing an employee on floating status presents dire
49  See Salvaloza v. National Labor Relations Commission, 650 Phil. 543,
557; 636 SCRA 184, 197 (2010), stating that —
consequences for him or her, occasioned by the withholding of
Temporary “off-detail” or “floating status” is the period of time wages and benefits while he or she is not reinstated. To restate
when security guards are in between assignments or when they are made what the appellate court cited, “[d]ue to the grim economic
to wait after being relieved from a previous post until they are consequences to the employee, the employer should bear the
transferred to a new one. It takes place when the security agency’s
clients decide not to renew their contracts with the agency, resulting in
burden of proving that there are no posts available to which the
a situation where the available posts under its existing contracts are employee temporarily out of work can be assigned.”50 However,
less than the number of guards in its roster. (Emphasis supplied) petitioner has failed miserably in this regard.
 
Resignation rights and other privileges, and to his full backwages, inclusive of
  allowances and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent
While this Court agrees with the appellate court’s computed from the time his compensation was withheld up to the
observation that respondent’s resignation was involuntary as it time of actual reinstatement. If reinstatement is not possible,
however, the award of separation pay is proper.
became unbearable for her to continue with her employment,
Backwages and reinstatement are separate and distinct reliefs
expounding on the issue at length is unnecessary. Because she given to an illegally dismissed employee in order to alleviate the
is deemed constructively dismissed from the time of her illegal economic damage brought about by the employee’s dismissal.
transfer, her subsequent resignation became unnecessary and “Reinstatement is a restoration to a state from which one has been
irrelevant. There was no longer any position to relinquish at the removed or separated” while “the payment of backwages is a form of
time of her resignation. relief that restores the income that was lost by reason of the unlawful
  dismissal.” Therefore, the award of one does not bar the other.
Pecuniary Awards In the case of Aliling v. Feliciano, citing Golden Ace Builders v.
  Talde, the Court explained:
With the foregoing pronouncements, an award of indemnity Thus, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs:
in favor of respondent should be forthcoming. In case of con- backwages and reinstatement. The two reliefs provided are separate and
_______________ distinct. In instances where reinstatement is no longer feasible because of
strained relations between the employee and the employer, separation pay is
50  Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Valderama, supra note
33 at p. 370; p. 306, citing Pido v. National Labor Relations Commission, 545 granted. In effect, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either
Phil. 507, 516; 516 SCRA 609, 616-617 (2007). reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer
viable, and backwages.
 
   
316  
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 317
ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 317
Services, Inc.) vs. Sales ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing
structive dismissal, the employee is entitled to full backwages, Services, Inc.) vs. Sales
inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary  
equivalent, as well as separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. The
The normal consequences of respondents’ illegal dismissal, then, are
readily determinable amounts, as computed by the Labor Arbiter and
correspondingly reviewed and corrected by the appellate court, reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and payment of backwages
should be accorded finality and deemed binding on this Court. computed from the time compensation was withheld up to the date of actual
Settled is the rule that an employee who is unjustly dismissed reinstatement. Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option,
from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service
should be awarded as an alternative. The payment of separation pay is in The appropriate Computation Division of the National
addition to payment of backwages.51 Labor Relations Commission is hereby ordered
to COMPUTE and UPDATE the award as herein
  determined WITH DISPATCH.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed SO ORDERED.
January 10, 2012 Decision and May 28, 2012 Resolution of the Carpio (Chairperson), Mendoza,
Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 109860 Leonen and Jardeleza,** JJ., concur.
are AFFIRMED, with MODIFICATIONS, in that petitioner
ICT Marketing Services, Inc., now known as Sykes Marketing Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed with
Services, Inc., is ordered to PAY respondent Mariphil L. Sales modifications.
the following:
Notes.—The rule is settled that “off-detailing” is not
1) Backwages and all other benefits from July 30, 2007
equivalent to dismissal, so long as such status does not
until finality of this Decision;
continue beyond a reasonable time and that it is only when
2) Separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for
such a “floating status” lasts for more than six months that the
every year of service;
employee may be considered to have been constructively
3) Moral and exemplary damages in the amount of
dismissed. (Nippon Housing Phil., Inc. vs. Leynes, 655
P50,000.00;
SCRA 77 [2011])
4) Attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the
Even though transfers or reassignments per se are indeed
total monetary award; and
valid and fall within the ambit of management prerogatives, the
5) Interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum of the total
exercise of these rights must remain within the boundaries of
monetary awards, computed from July 30, 2007 up to June 30,
justice and fair play. (Tuason vs. Bank of Commerce, 686
2013, and thereafter, six percent (6%) per annum from July 1,
SCRA 174 [2012])
2013 until their full satisfaction.
_______________  
 
51  Reyes v. RP Guardians Security Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 193756, April ——o0o——
10, 2013, 695 SCRA 620, 625-627.
_______________
 
  **  Designated acting member per Special Order No. 2166 dated September
9, 2015.
318
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
ICT Marketing Services, Inc. (now known as Sykes Marketing reserved.
Services, Inc.) vs. Sales