Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FEDERITO B. PIDO v. NLRC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 184618 2014-11-19	PEAK VENTURES CORPORATION v. HEIRS OF NESTOR B. VILLAREAL DEL CASTILLO, J.
When Villareal was relieved from duty, he was placed on floating status. "A floating status requires the dire exigency of the employer's bona fide suspension of operation, business or undertaking."[51] "It takes place when the security agency's clients decide not to renew their contracts with the agency x x x" and also "in instances where contracts for security services stipulate that the client may request the agency for the replacement of the guards assigned to it x x x."[52] In the latter case, the employer should prove that there are no posts available to which the employee temporarily out of work can be assigned.[53]
	GR No. 198538 2014-09-29	EXOCET SECURITY v. ARMANDO D. SERRANO VELASCO JR., J.
As the circumstance is generally outside the control of the security agency or the employer, the Court has ruled that when a security guard is placed on a "floating status," he or she does not receive any salary or financial benefit provided by law. Pido v. National Labor Relations Commission[21]explains why: Verily, a floating status requires the dire exigency of the employer's bona fide suspension of operation of a business or undertaking. In security services, this happens when the security agency's clients which do not renew their contracts are more than those that do and the new ones that the agency gets. Also, in instances when contracts for security services stipulate that the client may request the agency for the replacement of the guards assigned to it even for want of cause, the replaced security guard may be placed on temporary "off-detail" if there are no available posts under respondent's existing contracts.
	GR No. 186614 2011-02-23	NATIONWIDE SECURITY v. RONALD P. VALDERAMA NACHURA, J.
When a security guard is placed on a "floating status," he does not receive any salary or financial benefit provided by law. Due to the grim economic consequences to the employee, the employer should bear the burden of proving that there are no posts available to which the employee temporarily out of work can be assigned.[12]
	GR No. 180285 2010-07-06	MA. SOCORRO MANDAPAT v. ADD FORCE PERSONNEL SERVICES PEREZ, J.
When preventive suspension exceeds the maximum period allowed without reinstating the employee either by actual or payroll reinstatement[18] or when preventive suspension is for indefinite period,[19] only then will constructive dismissal set in.