Facts
Petitioners (Rhoda P. Amor et al.) were employed by Constant Packaging Corporation (Constant Packaging) as sorters, revisers, and packers on a pakyaw basis. Some petitioners aired grievances regarding working conditions, including concerns about below minimum wages, 12-hour work days, 7-day work weeks, and non-remittance of statutory contributions. Management prevented several employees from entering the company premises after they raised concerns or failed to attend the company Christmas Party. A total of 12 petitioners claimed they were prevented by security guards from entering the premises to render work, which they argued constituted illegal dismissal. Constant Packaging argued that the workers were not dismissed but were simply not required to work on a specific schedule since they were pakyaw workers and that they eventually abandoned their employment. Separately, two petitioners, Marissa C. Busel and Glenda M. Tordillo, claimed they were constructively dismissed due to harassment and pressure from their supervisor, leading to their resignation.
Issues
- Whether the act of barring 12 petitioners from entering the company premises and rendering work constitutes illegal dismissal.
- Whether the two petitioners (Busel and Tordillo) were constructively dismissed.
- Whether the petitioners, as pakyaw workers, are entitled to 13th month pay.
Ruling
ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Court of Appeals September 27, 2021 Decision and March 30, 2022 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 164597 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioners Rhoda P. Amor, Lourdes R. Balanquit, Gloria G. Narag, Jovelyn G. Bueno, Agnes B. Ricerra, Valentina H. Adalid, Elynor R. Romero, Maria Fe J. Claro, Elizabeth C. Catulay, Celestina V. Magtolis, Jonalyn R. Romero, and Jasmin B. Borlagdatan-Arambulo are found to have been ILLEGALLY DISMISSED. Respondent Constant Packaging Corporation is ORDERED TO PAY petitioners their separation pay and backwages, as well as their service incentive leave and holiday pay, but they are not entitled to 13th month pay. The case is REMANDED to the labor arbiter for the computation of the monetary awards due to these 12 petitioners. However, petitioners Marissa C. Busel and Glenda M. Tordillo are found to have not been illegally dismissed. SO ORDERED.
Essential Elements of Jurisprudence
- Illegal Dismissal by Overt Act: The act of preventing an employee from reporting to work is considered dismissal, and the lack of just or authorized cause and procedural due process makes it illegal. Being barred by security guards from entering the premises and rendering work constitutes an overt act of dismissal.
- Burden of Proof in Illegal Dismissal: When an employee is able and willing to work, evidenced by their proceeding to the company premises, and the employer arbitrarily prevents them from working for no known and valid reason, then there is illegal dismissal. Respondents cannot put the burden on the petitioners to prove the fact of dismissal when the respondents themselves exhibit a lack of compliance with legal requirements that makes the dismissal illegal.
- Elements of Abandonment (Distinguished from Dismissal): To sustain an employer’s theory of abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) the employee must have failed to report to work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) there must have been an overt act demonstrating clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship. Merely being barred from entry does not constitute an overt act by the employee to sever the relationship.
- Constructive Dismissal (Burden of Proof): While resignation may be resolved as constructive dismissal when oppressive conduct forces the employee to quit, the burden of proving constructive dismissal is squarely on the employee. If the evidence supporting the allegation of oppressive conduct resulting in constructive dismissal is deemed unsubstantiated, the claim fails.
- Exclusion from 13th Month Pay: Those employees who are paid on a pakyaw (piece-rate) basis are excluded from the coverage of the 13th month pay benefit.
Sample Q&A
Question: Constant Packaging, a manufacturing company, barred its pakyaw workers, Amor et al., from entering the premises after they raised concerns regarding working hours and wage remittances. Is the management’s act of preventing entry tantamount to illegal dismissal, and are Amor et al. entitled to 13th month pay?
Answer: Yes, the act constitutes illegal dismissal, but Amor et al. are generally not entitled to 13th month pay.
The Supreme Court established that the act of preventing an employee from reporting to work is considered dismissal, and where such action is carried out without just or authorized cause and due process, it is illegal. The act of barring employees from entry and rendering work constitutes the overt act of termination required for illegal dismissal. The employer’s failure to allow them to work invalidates any defense of abandonment.
However, concerning the monetary awards, since the petitioners were found to be paid on a pakyaw basis, they are excluded from the coverage of the 13th month pay. This exclusion is based on the Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree No. 851, which excludes employees who are paid on a piece-rate basis. Nonetheless, due to the illegal dismissal, Constant Packaging must pay the petitioners separation pay and backwages, as well as service incentive leave and holiday pay.
IllegalDismissal #LaborLawPH #PakyawWorkers #ConstructiveDismissal #AbandonmentOfWork #13thMonthPay #BurdenOfProof #LaborJurisprudence #SupremeCourtPH #GR259988 #AmorVConstantPackaging #PhilippineLaw #LaborCodeOfThePhilippines #LawStudentPH #FilipinoLawyer #BarExamsPH #LegalPH #PhilippineJurisprudence #AttyPH #LawSchoolPhilippines #EmployeeRightsPH #Law #Legal #Jurisprudence #CaseDigest #LegalUpdate #HumanResources #HRPH #WorkplaceRights #KnowYourRightsPH #PhilippineCases
Leave a Reply