BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
ANDREI NICHOLETTE SAGARINO VS. TOPLIS SOLUTIONS, INC., G.R. NO. 267379, OCTOBER 15, 2025: GENERAL RETURN-TO-WORK ORDER ISSUED BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WITHOUT SPECIFIC ASSIGNMENT OF ITS WORKER TO A NEW CLIENT AMOUNTS TO CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL
This case stemmed from the Notice-of-Pull Out issued to petitioner Andrei Nicholette Sagarino by her employer respondent Toplis Solutions, Inc. (TSI), an independent contractor. Allegedly, petitioner Sagarino did not pass the standard performance evaluation and thus will be placed under floating status. Petitioner Sagarino was informed of her violations of the company code and ethics of respondent TSI’s client, Azalea, and Azalea’s decision to return petitioner Sagarino to respondent TSI’s work pool.
Petitioner Sagarino asserted that the attached employee performance evaluation has been tampered, thus, he filed a Complaint before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter, NLRC and Court of Appeals uniformly held that petitioner Sagarino was TSI’s regular employee because of the lack of reasonable standards by which petitioner Sagarino’s probationary employment was to be assessed. However, the Court of Appeals sided with respondent TSI and held that the premature filing of the illegal dismissal case deprived respondent TSI of the latitude given to it by law to reassign petitioner Sagarino to another client. The Court of Appeals also agreed with respondent TSI’s assertion that it offered petitioner Sagarino several opportunities to return to work.
The Supreme Court ruled that respondent TSI is a legitimate independent contractor, with its operations dependent on client contracts. Consequently, the need to reassign petitioner Sagarino is contingent upon the requirements of TSI’s third-party clients and contractual obligations. The Court held that it is within respondent TSI’s prerogative to place petitioner Sagarino on floating status, especially since Azalea informed TSI that petitioner Sagarino’s services will no longer be extended. However, it does not absolve respondent TSI of its responsibility to assign petitioner Sagarino to another client.
The Supreme Court, citing the cases of Padilla vs. Airborne Security Services, Inc., G.R. No. 210080, November 22, 2017; Ador vs. Jamila and Company Security Services, Inc., G.R. No. 245422, July 7, 2020; Hamid vs. Gervasio Security and Investigation Agency, G.R. No. 230968, July 27, 2022; and Ibon vs. Genghis Khan Security Services, G.R. No. 221085, June 29, 2017, held that specificity requirement for return-to-work orders is reflected in several cases ruled upon by the Court. On numerous occasions, the Court has emphasized that a new assignment must be made to a specific client. A general return-to-work order, without such specificity, is insufficient.
The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner Sagarino was thus constructively dismissed when respondent TSI failed to assign him to a specific client. Respondent TSI issued general return-to-work orders, which did not interrupt petitioner Sagarino’s floating status.