Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONWIDE SECURITY v. RONALD P. VALDERAMA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 198538 2014-09-29	EXOCET SECURITY v. ARMANDO D. SERRANO VELASCO JR., J.
In every case, the Court has declared that the burden of proving that there are no posts available to which the security guard may be assigned rests on the employer. We ruled in Nationwide Security and Allied Services Inc. v. Valderama:[26]
	GR No. 204761 2014-04-02	EMERITUS SECURITY v. JANRIE C. DAILIG CARPIO, J.
The Court agrees with the ruling of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC and Court of Appeals that a floating status of a security guard, such as respondent, for more than six months constitutes constructive dismissal. In Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Valderama,[8] the Court held: x x x the temporary inactivity or "floating status" of security guards should continue only for six months. Otherwise, the security agency concerned could be liable for constructive dismissal. The failure of petitioner to give respondent a work assignment beyond the reasonable six-month period makes it liable for constructive dismissal. x x x.[9]
	GR No. 171677 2013-01-30	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RINA PARAYNO LIM REYES, J.
Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Valderama[55] is instructive anent the effects of the issuance of a minute resolution, viz: It is true that, although contained in a minute resolution, our dismissal of the petition was a disposition of the merits of the case. When we dismissed the petition, we effectively affirmed the CA ruling being questioned. As a result, our ruling in that case has already become final. x x x.