(General information; not legal advice.)

1) Why security guards are a “special” illegal-dismissal problem

Security guards sit at the intersection of labor law and the private security industry. In practice, the most common dismissal disputes arise from the triangular arrangement:

Security guard (employee)
Security agency (employer/contractor)
Client/principal (the establishment where the guard is posted)

This setup generates recurring issues—“end of assignment,” “pull-out,” “relief,” “floating status,” and “client-requested termination”—that are often misunderstood and frequently litigated.

The bedrock rule remains the same: security guards have security of tenure. They cannot be dismissed except for a lawful cause and with due process.

2) Who is the employer: agency or client?

In legitimate security service contracting, the security agency is the employer. The client may request a guard’s replacement, but that does not automatically terminate employment. The agency remains responsible for:

assignment/reassignment,
wages and benefits,
discipline and termination,
compliance with procedural requirements.

A client can become legally exposed in exceptional situations (e.g., labor-only contracting or when the client effectively acts as the employer through control), and clients may also face solidary liability for certain monetary claims under “indirect employer” principles in contracting arrangements. But as a rule in security guard deployment, the agency is the primary party accountable for a dismissal.

3) The constitutional and statutory core: security of tenure

Philippine labor law protects the employee’s right to security of tenure. In dismissal cases, the central questions are:

Was there a valid cause? (substantive legality)
Was due process observed? (procedural legality)

If either is missing, the dismissal can be illegal or can result in liability even if a cause existed.

4) What is “illegal dismissal” in the guard context?

A dismissal is generally illegal when:

the employer terminates without a just cause or authorized cause recognized by law; or
the employer terminates for a cause but fails to follow required procedure; or
the employer’s actions amount to constructive dismissal (forced resignation, intolerable work conditions, sham “floating status,” unreasonable demotion, etc.).

Dismissal vs. “end of posting”

A recurring misconception is that a guard is “terminated” because the posting ended. In law, the end of a client assignment is usually not the end of employment. The agency must reassign the guard, place the guard in a valid temporary “off-detail” status, or—if business conditions justify it—terminate through an authorized cause with notices and separation pay.

5) Lawful grounds to terminate a security guard

Philippine law recognizes three broad termination pathways:

A) Just causes (fault-based)

These are found in the Labor Code (commonly cited as Article 297, formerly Article 282). Typical just causes include:

Serious misconduct
- Examples in guard work: abandoning post, violence, drunkenness on duty, gross insubordination, falsification of incident reports, grave violations of agency/client rules that are lawful and known.
Willful disobedience / insubordination
- Must be willful and relate to a lawful and reasonable order connected to the job.
Gross and habitual neglect of duties
- Usually requires both gravity and habituality (pattern), not isolated minor lapses.
Fraud or willful breach of trust / loss of trust and confidence
- Often invoked against guards because they hold sensitive positions. But it is not automatic: the employer must show basis (acts that justify distrust) and substantial evidence.
Commission of a crime/offense against the employer, employer’s family, or duly authorized representatives (and in practice, sometimes work-related crimes)
Analogous causes
- Causes similar in nature to those listed (must be serious, work-related, and supported by evidence).

Key point: Even if the employer believes a guard “deserves termination,” it must still prove facts with substantial evidence and follow due process.

B) Authorized causes (business-based, not necessarily employee fault)

These are commonly cited as Article 298 (formerly Article 283) and related provisions. They include:

Redundancy
Retrenchment to prevent losses
Closure or cessation of business/operations (or part of it)
Installation of labor-saving devices

There is also termination due to disease (commonly cited as Article 299, formerly Article 284), which has its own medical/fitness requirements.

Authorized cause terminations require:

written notice to the employee and to DOLE (generally at least 30 days prior), and
separation pay at the legally required rate (which depends on the ground).

In the guard context, agencies sometimes attempt to treat loss of a client contract as automatic termination. Properly handled, a lost account may contribute to a legitimate retrenchment or closure situation—but it does not erase the legal requirements of notices and separation pay, and it does not automatically defeat reassignment duties if the agency still has posts.

C) Completion/expiration of a valid employment status

In some industries, project/fixed-term arrangements can end without “dismissal.” For security guards, however, guards are frequently treated as regular employees of the agency because guarding is the agency’s core business. Labels like “contractual,” “project,” or “per assignment” do not control if the actual facts show the guard performs tasks necessary and desirable to the agency’s business and has continued service.

6) “End of assignment,” “pull-out,” and “relief” are not magic words

A) Client pull-out

A client may request that a guard be replaced. This may be due to performance issues, personality conflicts, or client preference. But legally:

A client’s request is not itself a statutory “just cause.”
It may trigger an agency’s investigation and discipline process if the request is grounded on misconduct/neglect.
If the client request is arbitrary, the agency should generally reassign the guard rather than terminate.

B) Relief and reassignment

Agencies often issue “relieved” or “pulled out” notices. A relief may be legitimate as an operational move, but termination cannot be disguised as relief. A relieved guard must be:

reassigned within a lawful framework, or
placed on a proper temporary “off-detail” status, or
terminated through a lawful cause (with due process).

7) Floating status / off-detail (temporary layoff): the 6-month boundary

A central concept for security guards is the Labor Code’s allowance of bona fide suspension of business operations or temporary layoff (commonly cited as Article 301, formerly Article 286). In security practice this appears as:

off-detail
off-post
floating status

General rule (commonly applied):

It may be valid to place a guard on floating status for a limited period when there is no available post.
If the floating status exceeds 6 months, it can ripen into constructive dismissal unless the guard is recalled/reassigned or the employment is lawfully terminated through authorized cause procedures.

What makes floating status suspicious (often leading to illegal dismissal findings):

No genuine effort to reassign despite available posts
Using off-detail as punishment without due process
Keeping the guard indefinitely in limbo
Selectively “floating” only certain guards for retaliatory/discriminatory reasons
Requiring the guard to “resign” to get final pay or clearance

8) Constructive dismissal in the guard setting

Even without a termination letter, a guard may be constructively dismissed when the employer’s acts make continued employment impossible, unreasonable, or humiliating. Common examples:

Indefinite floating status beyond lawful limits
Severe reduction in pay/benefits not justified by law (e.g., demotion with pay cut)
Unreasonable transfer/reassignment designed to force resignation (e.g., punitive relocation with impossible reporting conditions, not tied to legitimate operational need)
Harassment, coercion, or threats
Forced resignation or resignation obtained by intimidation
Being barred from work (told not to report, denied entry, removed from roster) without lawful process

Constructive dismissal is treated as dismissal, triggering the same remedies.

9) Due process: what employers must do (and what guards should recognize)

Even if a cause exists, the employer must follow procedure. Philippine labor doctrine distinguishes:

Substantive due process = valid cause
Procedural due process = proper process (notices/opportunity to explain)

A) For just causes (disciplinary terminations)

The standard is the two-notice rule plus meaningful opportunity to be heard:

First written notice (notice to explain / charge sheet)
- Must specify the acts/omissions complained of and the rule violated.
Reasonable opportunity to respond
- Often understood in practice as at least 5 calendar days to submit an explanation.
Hearing or conference (when necessary)
- Not always a full trial-type hearing, but there must be a real chance to answer accusations, present evidence, and respond to the employer’s evidence.
Second written notice (notice of decision)
- Must state that termination is decided and explain the basis.

B) For authorized causes

30-day written notice to the employee and DOLE before the effectivity date (typical rule).
Payment of separation pay (rate depends on ground).
Good faith and factual basis (e.g., retrenchment must be supported by financial evidence and fair criteria).

C) Preventive suspension is not termination

Employers may place an employee on preventive suspension while investigating if the employee’s continued presence poses a serious and imminent threat to life or property or might compromise the investigation. But preventive suspension must be used carefully:

It is temporary, not a penalty by itself.
Overuse or abusive use can support a constructive dismissal claim.

10) Burden of proof and evidence in illegal dismissal cases

A) Who must prove what?

A common framework:

The employee/guard must show the fact of dismissal (or facts indicating constructive dismissal).
Once dismissal is established, the employer must prove:
- a valid cause, and
- observance of due process.

Failure of the employer to discharge this burden typically results in a finding of illegal dismissal (or liability for procedural violations).

B) Typical evidence in guard disputes

For the employer/agency:

incident reports and logbook entries (with authentication),
CCTV footage (and proper identification of the guard and date/time),
client letters/complaints (preferably with details),
written memoranda, explain notices, and decision notices,
attendance records, duty schedules, post orders,
proof of service of notices.

For the guard:

proof of being prevented from reporting (texts, gate log entries, chat messages),
proof of continuous service/regularity (IDs, payslips, deployment orders),
proof of “floating” beyond lawful limits,
evidence of coercion to resign or sign quitclaims,
inconsistencies in the employer’s paperwork.

Quitclaims and waivers: not automatically invalid, but closely scrutinized. If a quitclaim is forced, unconscionable, or used to mask illegal dismissal, it may be disregarded.

11) Consequences and remedies if dismissal is illegal

When a dismissal is found illegal, the Labor Code remedy framework generally includes:

A) Reinstatement

Reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other benefits.

B) Full backwages

Backwages computed from the time compensation was withheld until actual reinstatement.

C) Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement

When reinstatement is no longer feasible due to strained relations, closure, abolition of post, or other circumstances, adjudicators may award separation pay instead of reinstatement (often computed per year of service under prevailing doctrines).

D) Damages and attorney’s fees (in appropriate cases)

Nominal damages may be awarded when there is a valid cause but procedural due process was violated.
Moral and exemplary damages may be awarded when the dismissal is attended by bad faith, fraud, or oppressive conduct.
Attorney’s fees may be awarded in certain situations (commonly in money claims or when compelled to litigate).

E) Reinstatement pending appeal (practical note)

In many illegal dismissal rulings, reinstatement is treated as immediately executory even while the employer appeals (subject to procedural rules and jurisprudence). Employers sometimes opt for payroll reinstatement.

12) Where to file and what the process usually looks like

A) Usual forum

Illegal dismissal claims (especially those seeking reinstatement and damages) are typically filed with the NLRC (Labor Arbiter level first).

B) Common procedural path

SEnA (Single Entry Approach) / mediation at DOLE level is often a front-end conciliation mechanism.
If unresolved, filing of a case with the NLRC.
Submission of position papers and evidence; conferences as needed.
Labor Arbiter decision
Appeal to the NLRC Commission
Further review via Rule 65 petition before the Court of Appeals, then possibly the Supreme Court (subject to standards and discretion)

C) Prescription periods (general guide)

Illegal dismissal actions are commonly treated as prescribing in 4 years from accrual of cause of action.
Money claims (wages, benefits) are commonly subject to a 3-year prescriptive period.

(Exact computations can be fact-sensitive—e.g., when constructive dismissal is alleged, identifying the point of accrual matters.)

13) Frequent “illegal dismissal” patterns involving guards

Below are recurring fact patterns that often lead to findings of illegality, depending on proof:

“End of contract with client—terminated ka na.”
- Termination without authorized cause process; no reassignment; no separation pay.
Client requests pull-out, and agency terminates immediately
- Without investigation and due process; client preference is treated as cause.
Floating status beyond lawful duration
- Guard left off-detail for more than six months without recall or lawful termination.
Paper termination with no real opportunity to respond
- Notices exist but are not properly served, too vague, or the guard is not given a real chance to explain.
Loss of trust invoked with weak factual basis
- Especially where evidence is hearsay-only, inconsistent, or not tied to actual misconduct.
Forced resignation/quitclaim as condition for release of final pay
- Coercion, intimidation, or deprivation tactics.
Retaliation
- Termination after complaining about underpayment, overtime, statutory benefits, union activity, or filing a DOLE/NLRC case.

14) When a guard’s refusal can be lawful (and when it can be a trap)

Agencies sometimes argue that the guard “refused reassignment,” justifying termination for insubordination or abandonment. This turns on facts:

A guard may be expected to accept reasonable reassignment consistent with the job and employment terms.
But the reassignment must be lawful, reasonable, and made in good faith (not punitive or impossible).
“Abandonment” is difficult to prove; it generally requires:
1. failure to report, and
2. clear intent to sever the employment relationship.

A guard disputing reassignment typically needs to show the reassignment was unreasonable or the guard did not intend to abandon employment.

15) Compliance checklist for agencies (and what guards can watch for)

For agencies (risk-reduction, legality):

Treat pull-outs as operational moves, not automatic termination triggers.
Use floating status only when genuinely necessary and track the timeline.
Maintain a real reassignment system and records of available posts.
Follow the two-notice rule for disciplinary cases; serve notices properly.
For authorized causes, issue DOLE/employee notices on time and compute separation pay correctly.
Keep evidence reliable (logs authenticated, CCTV properly handled, client complaints detailed and verified).
Avoid coercive clearance/quitclaim practices.

For guards (recognition of due process and documentation):

Keep deployment orders, payslips, IDs, schedules, and communications.
Document being barred from reporting or kept off-detail.
Respond in writing to notices; keep stamped receiving copies when possible.
Be cautious with resignation letters and quitclaims signed under pressure.

16) Common misconceptions

“Client terminated you, so legal.” Client preference is not automatically a legal cause for termination.
“You’re contractual because posting is contractual.” Employment status depends on the nature of work and actual relationship, not labels.
“Floating status has no limit.” It is not meant to be indefinite; prolonged floating status can become constructive dismissal.
“As long as there’s a memo, due process is satisfied.” Due process requires content, proper service, time to respond, and a real evaluation—not just paperwork.
“We can terminate for loss of trust anytime because guards are ‘trust positions.’” Loss of trust still requires a factual basis supported by substantial evidence and proper procedure.

17) Bottom line principles

The security agency is generally the employer and must justify and process termination lawfully.
End of posting is not, by itself, a legal ground for dismissal.
Lawful dismissal requires valid cause and due process.
Floating status is time-bound in principle; abuse can amount to constructive dismissal.
Illegal dismissal commonly results in reinstatement and backwages, or separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, plus possible damages depending on circumstances.