Nippon Housing Phil, Inc. vs.

Leynes
G.R. No. 177816. August 3, 2011
Topic: Security of Tenure; Floating Status

Facts:
Nippon Housing hired Maiah Leynes as a property manager. She handled the project for the companys only client,
Bay Gardens Condominium Corp. (BGCC). In one incident, Leynes had a misunderstanding with Engr. Cantuba
regarding the extension of his work hours. She then wrote to the companys HR alleging insubordination on
Cantubas part.

Nippons VP Takada, issued a memo attributing the incident to simple personal differences and ordered Leynes
and Cantuba to report back to work.

Disappointed, Leynes wrote to the companys president, Ota, on Feb 12, 2002, asking for an emergency leave of
absence. This was so that Leynes could coordinate with her lawyer regarding her resignation letter. The next day,
Nippon offered the Property Manager job to Engr. Jose. However, it also happened that Leynes sent another letter
to Nippon calling off her resignation upon her lawyers advice.

When Leynes returned to work, she was advised that a substitute had already been hired for her position. She was
then put on floating status.

Subsequently, Leynes filed a case for illegal dismissal against Nippon. She claimed that she was dismissed without
just cause.

Nippon in its defense asserted that it was exercising is management prerogatives in placing her on floating status
due to her threatened resignation and their clients (BGCC) request for her replacement.

During the pendency of the case, Nippon sent a letter of termination to Leynes and the DOLE on Aug. 8, 2002 to be
effective on Aug. 22, 2002. Leynes was eventually terminated for redundancy.

Issues:
First Issue: Was placing Leynes on floating status equivalent to a constructive Dismissal?
No. The rule is that placing an employee on floating status, or offdetailing, is not equivalent to dismissal if it does
not continue beyond a reasonable time. The employee is considered constructively dismissed if the floating status
exceeds 6 months.

Nippon, acting on Leyness letter expressing her intention to resign, simply placed her on floating status until
another project could be secured for her. Further, a complaint for illegal dismissal prior to the lapse of six months
of the floating status is considered prematurely filed.

Second Issue: Was the eventual dismissal valid?

Yes. The facts clearly indicate that Leynes was redundant because there was no need for her services due to her
replacement being hired. It was within the companys management prerogative to hire a replacement when
Leynes threatened that she would resign.

Third Issue: Was there a violation of the 30-day notice requirement?

Yes. Even if Leynes was terminated for an authorized cause, Nippon failed to follow the 30 day notice requirement
considering that the termination took effect less than 30 days from its issuance. Hence, Leynes is entitled to
damages.