In October 1988, Jose was employed as a security guard by Twinstar Professional Protective Services, Inc. (Twinstar). He was deployed at the Las Haciendas in Tarlac City.
Sometime in January 2011, Jose sought assistance from the program of a certain Mr. Tulfo to complain about the underpayment of his salaries. On January 24, 2011, Twinstar directed Jose to report to its office in Quezon City. Jose stated that upon reporting to the office the next day, Twinstar informed him that he was being placed on floating status. Jose also stated that his floating status lasted for more than six (6) months.
The Office of the Labor Arbiter held that Jose was constructively dismissed from employment. The National Labor Relations Commission reversed the ruling of the Office of the Labor Arbiter and held that no constructive dismissal took place. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission.
Was Jose constructively dismissed from employment?
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative.
Jurisprudence teaches that there is constructive dismissal when an employer’s act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee so as to foreclose any choice on his part except to resign from such employment. It exists where there is involuntary resignation because of the harsh, hostile and unfavorable conditions set by the employer. The standard for constructive dismissal is “whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his employment under the circumstances.”
However, the Court emphasized that “not every inconvenience, disruption, difficulty, or disadvantage that an employee must endure sustains a finding of constructive dismissal.” What is vital is the weighing of the evidence presented and a consideration of whether, given the totality of circumstances, the employer acted fairly in exercising a prerogative.
In the present case, the Court found that Jose failed that he was constructively dismissed by Twinstar. According to the Court, Jose never presented any evidence, aside from his self-serving allegations, that he was forced to be on floating status for more than six (6) months without being given new assignment by Twinstar.
On the other hand, the Court found that Twinstar was able to establish that Jose went on absence without leave on or about January 21, 2011 and that it had subsequently sent several notices directing Jose to report for work. The Court also found that Twinstar’s duty officer vainly tried to contact Jose by calling him and sending text messages. Also Twinstar’s field inspector attempted to deliver a company letter on June 8, 2011 but Jose refused to receive the same. Furthermore, the Court discovered that Jose himself admitted declining the assignment offered to him by Twinstar within six (6) months from the time he was placed on floating status in the hearing dated October 18, 2011 before the Office of the Labor Arbiter. According to the Court, Jose’s flimsy claim that he did not understand the question of the Office of the Labor Arbiter and the Minutes of the said hearing, as both were in the English language, would seem like a desperate attempt to feign ignorance in order to retract such statements. The Court stated that Jose had all the opportunity to request the Office of the Labor Arbiter to translate the question and the Minutes to a language he understood, but he chose not to. The Court pointed out that Jose himself indicated in his bio-data that English is one of the languages he can speak and write.
For the Court, the totality of circumstances led it to conclude that no constructive dismissal happened. Instead, the circumstances revealed Jose’s stubborn unwillingness to return to work despite being required by Twinstar to report to work multiple times within six (6) months from January 21, 2011.
Thus, this Court ruled that Twinstar had just cause to terminate Jose’s employment.
Further reading:
Dela Torre v. Twinstar Professional Protective Services, Inc., G.R. No. 222992, June 23, 2021.
On August 13, 2012, Jayraldin was hired by The Results Company, Inc. (TRCI), a business process outsourcing company. Jayraldin started as a sales representative and was promoted several times until he became a team leader in 2014. As a team leader, Jayraldin had the duty of supervising TRCI’s agents.
On December 30, 2014, Jayraldin received an email from TRCI, informing him of infractions allegedly committed by Ruby, an agent under his supervision. Allegedly, based on quality call monitoring, Ruby incorrectly processed a customer’s order and failed to fully apprise the customer of TRCI products.
TRCI’s Operations Manager decided to give Ruby a final written warning. However, Jayraldin, together with TRCI’s program managers, recommended that Ruby only be subjected to coaching.
Later, Jayraldin was handed a notice stating that he was grossly negligent in the performance of an assigned task and that he willfully disobeyed an order of a superior, when he failed to give Ruby a Notice to Explain and final warning. The same notice placed him under preventive suspension and summoned him to an administrative hearing.
Jayraldin explained that all program managers recommended that Ruby be provided only with coaching and that he had fulfilled his duty to issue her a Notice to Explain.
After administrative proceedings, Jayraldin was admonished with a warning that a similar violation of TRCI’s Code of Discipline might lead to his dismissal. Jayraldin was also placed on temporary lay-off. Specifically, he was subjected to re-profiling until he was ready for re-assignment to another account. During the lay-off, Jayraldin was not to receive any compensation.
TRCI contended that it only exercised its management prerogative. According to TRCI, it temporarily laid Jayraldin off so that it could assess his qualifications and re-assign him to other accounts, if needed.
Was Jayraldin constructively dismissed from employment?
The Supreme Court found that Jayraldin was constructively dismissed from employment.
The Court stated that constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay and other benefits. Aptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not, constructive dismissal may, likewise, exist if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment.1Morales v. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc., G.R. No. 174208, January 25, 2012.
With regard to transfer of an employee, the Court added that the employer is charged with the burden of proving that its conduct and action are for valid and legitimate grounds, such as genuine business necessity, and that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee. If the employer cannot overcome this burden of proof, the employee’s transfer shall be tantamount to unlawful constructive dismissal.2Morales v. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc., G.R. No. 174208, January 25, 2012.
In the present case, while the Court noted that the infraction that led to Jayraldin’s re-profiling was his failure to inform his subordinate of the penalty given by the Operations Manager, it found nothing on record to show that Jayraldin’s infraction was detrimental to the account he handled such that TRCI had no choice but to re-profile him.
The Court added that Jayraldin was in reality not even transferred to any account. According to the Court, Jayraldin was temporarily laid-off and treated like a new applicant where he would be assessed for other accounts to see if he was qualified. However, the Court found that in the interim, Jayraldin’s economic circumstances became murky. His compensation ceased for a period not to exceed six months as he awaited being accepted into a new account. Worse, he had no assurance whether he would be considered for another account.
The Court was convinced that TRCI failed to prove any valid and legitimate ground to re-profile Jayraldin as its drastic action was not commensurate to his transgressions. TRCI just made it appear on paper that Jayraldin was still its employee, but in reality he no longer received benefits, was placed in such a situation without any legitimate ground, and was treated like a new applicant. For the Court, this was clearly a dismissal in disguise and tantamount to constructive dismissal.
On TRCI’s argument that it exercised its management prerogative, the Court did not accept the same, in view of the prejudice against Jayraldin and the lack of legitimate ground to place him on temporary lay-off. According to the Court, although the exercise of management prerogative will ordinarily not be interfered with, it is not absolute and it is limited by law, collective bargaining agreement, and general principles of fair play and justice. Said the Court: “Indeed, having the right should not be confused with the manner in which that right is exercised.”
As a result of being constructively dismissed, Jayraldin was awarded separation pay, backwages, and attorney’s fees.
Further reading:
Ebus v. The Results Co., Inc., G.R. No. 244388, March 3, 2021.
Leyte Lumber, a construction supply and hardware store, hired Fernando as a sales representative.
As a company policy, Leyte Lumber’s sales representatives were prohibited from getting items or stocks from the storage area by themselves. They were to course the orders through authorized checkers before the items are released. They were also prohibited from leaving their designated work areas without their superior’s consent. Moreover, they were required to submit their applications for leave days before the intended dates to allow the management ample time to approve the application and to adjust the workforce and their workload.
Fernando allegedly overstepped the boundaries of Leyte Lumber’s company policies. One day, when Fernando was on his way to the stock room to follow up on a customer’s urgent order when Leyte Lumber’s general manager stopped him. The next day, the general manager saw Fernando step out of the store to check the availability of a ball caster in the storage area.
Leyte Lumber’s general manager required Gososo to produce a letter of apology for the two incidents under pain of dismissal. Admitting fault, Fernando submitted a letter of apology stating that he was just doing his job for Leyte Lumber’s clients and that he never intended to neglect his duties or disobey the company policy. The general manager allegedly refused to accept the letter of apology and instructed Fernando to revise his to reflect the statements “I am not supposed to approach the checker” and “I promise again to ask permission from manager before I can go out.”
The next day, Fernando was shown a prepared document, which he refused to sign since the document contained admissions of offenses that he did not commit. Irked by Fernando’s refusal, the general manager informed him of his termination from work and even threw a pair of scissors at him.
The Court reiterated established principles in that in illegal dismissal cases, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal before the employer is charged with the burden of proving its legality.
In the present case, the Court found that Fernando failed to prove that he was dismissed in the first place. Specifically, the Court discovered that he simply alleged that on October 11, 2008, upon his refusal to sign a document prepared by Leyte Lumber’s general manager, the latter was angrily told him that he was terminated from work on that very day, and even threw sharp scissors that almost hit him. The Court stated that this barely measured up to the minimum evidential requirement from Fernando. This is because mere acts of hostility, however grave, committed by the employer towards the employee cannot on their lonesome be construed as an overt directive of dismissal from work.
The Court added that assuming that Fernando was truly dismissed from employment, he still failed to demonstrate that Leyte Lumber did it constructively. According to the Court, although Fernando alleged that he was forced to sign a prepared incriminatory letter and then fired when he refused to do so, no evidence supported such allegation. The Court said that bare allegations deserve no legal credit for being self-serving.
The Court further stated that even if these accusations were adequately corroborated, the general manager’s rebuke of Fernando, while overbearing and intimidating, was reasonably incited by the latter’s violations of Leyte Lumber’s company practices. For the Court the rebuke did not amount to unequivocal acts of discrimination, insensibility, or disdain as to render Fernando’s continued employment as unbearable.
The Court concluded that no working basis constrains it to declare Fernando as dismissed, whether legally, illegally, or constructively.
Did Fernando abandon his employment?
The Court ruled that Fernando did not abandon his employment.
The Court said that abandonment requires the concurrence of the following: (1) the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) there must have been a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt acts. Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed from equivocal acts. Absence must be accompanied by overt acts pointing definitely to the fact that the employee simply does not want to work anymore. The burden of proof to show that there was unjustified refusal to go back to work rests on the employer.
In the present case, the Court found that Leyte Lumber failed to discharge this burden of proof of abandonment. It just surmised that Fernando had no intent to return to work when he allegedly went on an unapproved leave of absence on October 11, 2008, of which it was also the approving authority. No attendance sheet of any sort was submitted to substantiate its claim. Neither did it show that it denied Fernando’s application for leave.
The Court stressed that mere absence or simple failure to report for work is not abandonment, more so if the employee was able to lodge his complaint before the labor tribunals with haste. An immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal, more so when it includes a prayer for reinstatement, is inconsistent with a charge of abandonment. The Court said that employees like Fernando who take steps to protest their alleged dismissal cannot be said to have abandoned their work.
Further reading:
Gososo v. Leyte Lumber Yard and Hardware, Inc., G.R. No. 205257, January 13, 2021.
Maria Antoniette alleged that she was hired by Thanaya Al-Yaqoot Medical Specialist through its agent, Fil-Expat Placement Agency, to work as an orthodontist specialist in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Maria Antoniette narrated that in May 2016, her employer asked her to sign a document written in Arabic and wanted her to agree that only half of the stipulated salary would be declared to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) government for insurance purposes. She claimed to have expressed hesitation, but she eventually signed the document using a different signature.
Maria Antoniette stated that the employer then repeatedly forced her to execute a new employment contract. When she refused, the employer subjected her to varied forms of harassment in that she was given additional duties. Her employer also threatened to deduct 10,000 Saudi Riyal from her salary and force her out of her accommodation. Furthermore, her employer attempted to make sexual advances on her, and showed no concern when she suffered a severe allergic reaction to latex surgical gloves.
The employer denied that Maria Antoniette was maltreated. It pointed out that Maria Antoniette was visited by the Philippine Overseas Labor Office Local Hire together with the employer’s representative. They observed that Maria Antoniette had no swollen hands, bleeding blisters, and evidence of additional duties or sexual abuse. The employer added that it did not receive any complaint from Maria Antoniette. Although Maria Antoniette mentioned an incident when she was shouted at, the employer explained that it was normal for Arab people to talk in a loud voice.
The employer also denied that it committed contract substitution. Although it admitted that Maria Antoniette was asked to sign a new employment contract, this was only due to Maria Antoniette’s refusal to provide a copy of her contract and diploma, which must be submitted to the KSA Ministry of Health.
The employer also stated that Maria Antoniette was not threatened with a salary deduction. Instead, it merely explained to her that it would be fined should it fail to submit a copy of the contracts to the government.
Finally, the employer retorted that Maria Antoniette’s case could hardly be construed as one of constructive dismissal since she could decide to discontinue her contract. That no dismissal occurred could also be gleaned from its request for her to stay for two more months until her replacement arrives.
The Office of the Labor Arbiter declared the employer guilty of breach of contract and constructive dismissal.
This constrained the employer to appeal the Office of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision to the National Labor Relations Commission.
The Commission reversed the Office of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision and ruled that there was no breach of contract and constructive dismissal. According to the Commission, no contract substitution happened since the employer never intended to prejudice Maria Antoniette in the execution of a new employment contract. The Commission also ruled that since the execution of the new contract was for the purpose of complying with a foreign law requirement of devising a uniform contract for the protection of the worker and the employer, there could be no contract substitution. Furthermore, the Commission ruled out constructive dismissal because if found no evidence that Maria Antoniette’s continued employment was rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely.
Aggrieved, Maria Antoniette elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals reinstated the Decision of the Office of the Labor Arbiter because there was substantial evidence that the employer attempted to force Maria Antoniette into signing a new employment contract. The Court of Appeals stressed that the employer’s attempt to commit contract substitution should be punished to avoid repetition. The Court of Appeals also held that Maria Antoniette was compelled to seek repatriation because her employment became intolerable as she suffered verbal and psychological abuses after she refused to sign the new contract.
The employer assailed the Decision of the Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court.
Did the employer commit contract substitution?
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
The Court stated that substitution or alteration of employment contracts is listed as a prohibited practice under Article 34 (i) of the Labor Code of the Philippines. The Court further stated that to substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor and Employment is considered an act of illegal recruitment under Section 6 (i) of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
In the present case, the Supreme Court noted the admission of the employer that it attempted to make Maria Antoniette sign a new contract.
However, the Supreme Court doubted the claim of the employer that it had no intention of prejudicing Maria Antoniette relative to the supposed second contract.
This was because the employer failed to prove the specific foreign law which required a separate employment contract apart from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)-approved Standard Employment Contract.
In addition, the Supreme Court found it illogical to require Maria Antoniette to sign a second contract for purposes of uniformity if it would only restate the contents of the POEA-approved employment contract, which incidentally, already included an Arabic translation of the agreed terms and conditions between the employee and the employer. The Supreme Court continued that assuming Maria Antoniette failed to provide the employer a copy of the POEA-approved employment contract, the employer could just easily request a copy of the same from its agent.
The Supreme Court also noted the employer’s contention that because Maria Antoniette did not sign another document, there was no second contract, and hence, no contract substitution happened.
The Supreme Court rejected such contention because under prevailing jurisprudence, a refusal of the Overseas Filipino Worker to sign another employment contract does not absolve the employer from liability and the mere intention to commit contract substitution should not be left unpunished.
Was Maria Antoniette constructively dismissed from employment?
The Supreme Court likewise ruled in the affirmative.
The Supreme Court discussed that the law recognizes situations wherein the employee must leave his or her work to protect one’s rights from the coercive acts of the employer. The employee is considered to have been illegally terminated because he or she is forced to relinquish the job due to the employer’s unfair or unreasonable treatment. The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances.
In the present case, the Supreme Court found that despite the seeming benevolence of the employer in providing housing accommodation and other benefits to its employees, evidence, nonetheless, showed that Maria Antoniette was singled out and verbally intimidated after she refused to sign the second employment contract. Record revealed the following facts, which impelled Marie Antoniette to seek assistance from the Philippine Embassy and Consulate Officials in Saudi Arabia, as well as from the media:
Her employer told her that “she will see hell” if she reports her situation to the Philippine embassy;
Her employer threatened to reduce her salary for her refusal to sign the new contract;
She was constantly harassed and pressured into signing the new employment contract even in the middle of work;
She was humiliated in front of her co-workers and her employer’s relatives and friends; and
Her employer showed no concern over her severe allergic reaction to latex surgical gloves.
Moreover, the Supreme Court criticized the employer’s assertion of Marie Antoniette being overly sensitive. The Court viewed such assertion to be absurd if not downright insulting. According to the Court, Overseas Filipino Workers, especially medical professionals working abroad, could discern a loud voice from abusive language.
Taken together, the Supreme Court considered the foregoing circumstances as sufficient indications of the employer’s bad faith, hostility, and disdain toward Maria Antoniette. The Court stressed that while there was no formal termination of her services, she was left without any option except to quit her job. Maria Antoniette’s continued employment was rendered unlikely and unbearable, amounting to constructive dismissal.
Further reading:
Fil-Expat Placement Agency, Inc. v. Lee, G.R. No. 250439, September 22, 2020.
On 9 June 2006, the respondent group hired the employee as a legal officer. On 23 February 2007, it promoted her to corporate affairs manager and assigned her to head the human resources and legal departments of said respondent.
The employee narrated that a supervisor gave her a new and additional assignment as a customer service representative (CSR). She was told to answer phone calls and jot notes on her communications with clients. Since the CSR task was far from a managerial job, she approached said supervisor to suggest a different procedure. However, the latter negatively reacted and called the employee stupid and incompetent. On 6 and 9 December 2011, the president of the respondent group of companies verbally advised her to resign and remarked that even if the employee stays for 10 years, the respondent group would not spend Php1 million to pay her salary. The employee stated that the various heads of the respondent group then treated her indifferently. She also received emails implying that she was remiss in her duties to make her appear incompetent.
The respondent group stated that one of its companies requested the employee to handle complaints from its customers. However, the employee did not address the complaints and instead delegated the task to other personnel. The respondent group thus created a CSR project and designated the employee to man the same. Despite this, the employee still failed to perform her tasks. When asked for her justification, the employee explained that health concerns and stress caused her poor performance. The respondent group then suggested her resignation from employment, where she would receive financial assistance should she resign. However, the employee accused the respondent group not only of forcing her to resign, but also of bribing her with financial assistance. Because of this, the respondent group withheld their offer of financial assistance and just advised the employee to stay in her job, which she did. The respondent group, however, remarked that the employee became difficult to supervise.
Was the employee constructively dismissed from employment?
Jurisprudence1Rodriguez v. Park N Ride, Inc., G.R. No. 222980, March 20, 2017, 807 PHIL 747-764 dictates:
There is constructive dismissal when an employer’s act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee so as to foreclose any choice on his part except to resign from such employment. It exists where there is involuntary resignation because of the harsh, hostile and unfavorable conditions set by the employer. The standard for constructive dismissal is “whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his employment under the circumstances.”
The unreasonably harsh conditions that compel resignation on the part of an employee must be way beyond the occasional discomforts brought about by the misunderstandings between the employer and employee. Strong words may sometimes be exchanged as the employer describes her expectations or as the employee narrates the conditions of her work environment and the obstacles she encounters as she accomplishes her assigned tasks. As in every human relationship, there are bound to be disagreements.
However, when these strong words from the employer happen without palpable reason or are expressed only for the purpose of degrading the dignity of the employee, then a hostile work environment will be created. In a sense, the doctrine of constructive dismissal has been a consistent vehicle by this Court to assert the dignity of labor.
In the present case, the Court declared the employee to be constructively dismissed from employment. It found instances of disdainful and hostile acts committed against the employee that degraded her dignity as a person and eventually led her to file her constructive dismissal complaint:
The employee, who already held the position of corporate affairs manager, was made to work as a CSR, a function fit for a rank-and-file employee. The Court viewed this not only as a demotion, but also as an act of disdain and disrespect because she was treated as if she was unworthy of her managerial position.
When the employee suggested a different procedure for the CSR Project, her supervisor reacted negatively and told her she was stupid and incompetent — “No you don’t know anything stupid, stupid, I don’t care about what you say, if you do not accept this project by doing the procedure of answering phone calls from clients and jot down your communication with them and fill in the forms provided then resign, we do not need you here, all you have to do is put in writing that you are not accepting this project and that you are incompetent.” For the Court, these words clearly worsened her already hostile working environment and were plainly demeaning, degrading, and disrespectful to her dignity.
The employee was asked to resign on more than one occasion and was offered financial assistance. According to the Court, this shows that her employer was eager to remove her from its employ.
Although management told the employee to keep her job, it treated her indifferently thereafter.
According to the Court, the employee’s overall experience was mentally, emotionally and psychologically burdensome and made her tenure unbearable. Such experience prompted her to involuntarily give up her employment.
The Court noted that although the respondent group argued that the employee failed to meet the standard performance expected of her, said instance of poor performance was unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the fact that it assigned her to lead the CSR Project was an odd move considering her alleged poor performance. The Court stated that common sense would dictate that the project should have been headed by a competent and efficient employee if the employee’s performance was not satisfactory as the respondent group would claim.
Also, the Court said that the respondent group did not want to retain the employee, for otherwise, it could have asked her to take a medical leave or have her treated and diagnosed by a government physician.
Acts of disdain and hostile behavior such as demotion, uttering insulting words, asking for resignation, and apathetic conduct towards an employee constitute constructive illegal dismissal.
Further reading:
Bayview Management Consultants, Inc. v. Pre, G.R. No. 220170, August 19, 2020.
In early August of 2014, Donna entered into a 2-year employment contract to work as a household service worker with a foreign employer in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia through its local agent, FS Manpower. She was deployed overseas on January 11, 2015.
Donna only stayed abroad for less than 3 months before an early repatriation. She narrated that at around noontime on January 31, 2015, she was washing the dishes when she felt a hard object rubbing against her bottom and was surprised to see her male employer attempting to rape her. She went upstairs to report the matter to her female employer, but the latter did not believe her. Instead, the female employer began to ill-treat her. On February 16, 2015, her female employer violently threw a shoe at her.
Donna escaped and went to her agency’s counterpart in the KSA where she met another Overseas Filipino Worker who mentioned that they might be sold to other Arab employers. That fellow OFW suggested that they escape the agency through the window of the second-floor comfort room, since the agency keeps their doors locked at night. The fellow OFW succeeded in escaping the agency. Donna, however, fell and injured her back. The case mentioned a rather unsavory experience they had with a passerby during that time, anyway, an ambulance later took Donna to a hospital where she underwent surgery on February 28, 2015. After a few days, representatives from the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration brought them to bahay kalinga where they waited for their ticket exit visas.
On July 2, 2015, Donna filed a case for constructive illegal dismissal before the Office of the Labor Arbiter. She claimed that her working environment abroad allegedly became so intolerable that she was impelled to leave her job. She also assailed the validity of Final Settlement.
On the other hand, FS Manpower countered that Donna was the one who commenced the pre-termination of her contract since she was feeling “homesick.” Donna allegedly requested to be repatriated as soon as possible. When her foreign employer tried convincing her to stay, she repeatedly threatened to run away if she will not be permitted to leave.
Was Donna constructively dismissed from employment?
The Supreme Court found that Donna was constructively dismissed.
The Court said that in resolving issues of constructive dismissal, courts do not only weigh the evidence presented by the parties, but also delve into the totality of circumstances in a case.
The Court found that the controversy emanated from the lewd actuations of her male foreign employer on January 31, 2015. To avert a commotion, she reported the matter to her female employer but unfortunately, she was merely discredited and even blamed for the incident. From then on, Donna’s female foreign employer treated her differently. Donna was subjected to physical and verbal harm that she was left with no other choice but to relinquish her employment.
The treatment Donna experienced in the hands of her foreign employers fostered a hostile and unbearable work setting which impelled her not only to leave her employers but also, as in Donna’s words, to escape (or the Filipino word tumakas).
For the Court, it was clear that there existed a well-grounded fear on her part prompting her to run away despite having been employed overseas for barely 2 months. The cessation of Donna’s employment was not of her own doing but was brought about by unfavorable circumstances created by her foreign employers. If Donna failed to continue her job, it was because she refused to be further subjected to the ordeal caused by the her employers’ conduct.
Donna, the Court added, could not have gone to the counterpart agency and eventually injure herself in the course of escape were it not for the hostile treatment afforded by her foreign employers which made her run away.
The Court concluded that all of these evidently constituted a case of constructive dismissal.
Further reading:
Jacob v. First Step Manpower Int’l. Services, Inc., G.R. No. 229984, July 8, 2020.
On 16 January 2009, MCP started working for LBC as a customer associate in one of its branches. The branch’s team leader and officer-in-charge, AAB, endorsed her application for the post and acted as her immediate superior.
However, during her employment with LBC, MCP was sexually harassed by AAB.
On 5 May 2010, MCP reported the incident to the LBC Head Office and also prepared a resignation letter in case management would not act on her complaint. Management acted on her complaint by advising her to request for a transfer to another team while they investigated the matter.
On 8 May 2010, MCP returned to the LBC Head Office and submitted her formal complaint against AAB. MCP also reported AAB’s acts of sexual harassment to the police.
On 14 May 2010, MCP resigned from her employment since LBC management did not immediately act on her complaint. According to MCP, she was forced to quit since she no longer felt safe at work.
On 20 July 2010, MCP filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against LBC.
Was MCP constructively dismissed from employment?
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that constructive dismissal occurs when an employer makes an employee’s continued employment impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, or has made an employee’s working conditions or environment harsh, hostile and unfavorable, such that the employee feels obliged to resign from his or her employment. Common examples are when the employee is demoted, or when his or her pay or benefits are reduced. However, constructive dismissal is not limited to these instances. The gauge to determine whether there is constructive dismissal, is whether a reasonable person would feel constrained to resign from his or her employment because of the circumstances, conditions, and environment created by the employer for the employee1Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) v. Rebesencio, G.R. No. 198587, January 14, 2015, 750 PHIL 791-846. There may be constructive dismissal if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment.2Hyatt Taxi Services Inc. v. Catinoy, G.R. No. 143204, [June 26, 2001], 412 PHIL 295-307
In the present case, the Court found no proof that LBC acted on MCP’s report before they issued AAB a notice to explain. The Court further found that LBC only commenced the formal investigation 41 days after MCP reported the incident. Another month passed before it held an administrative hearing for the case against AAB. 2 more months passed before LBC resolved the matter.
The Court viewed LBC’s delay in acting on MCP’s complaint as an instance of insensibility, indifference, and disregard for its employees’ security and welfare. In failing to act promptly on MCP’s complaint and in choosing to let the resolution of the complaint hang in the air for a long period of time, LBC had shown that it did not accord her claims the necessary degree of importance, and at best considered it a minor infraction that could wait. LBC, the Court said, belittled her allegations.
Furthermore, the Court found that during the investigation, AAB resumed his duties as usual. In the meantime, MCP was found to have consumed her vacation leaves just to avoid him while waiting for the approval of her transfer to another branch. LBC’s acts showed that it was MCP who had to change and adjust, and even transfer from her place of work, instead of AAB. For the Court, LBC created create a hostile, unfavorable, unreasonable work atmosphere for MCP.
Stated otherwise LBC’s insensibility to MCP’s sexual harassment case was a ground for constructive dismissal. MCP was compelled to leave her employment because of the hostile and offensive work environment created and reinforced by AAB and LBC. MCP was thus clearly constructively dismissed.
Further reading:
LBC Express-Vis, Inc. v. Palco, G.R. No. 217101, February 12, 2020.
On 7 November 2010, Hazel entered into a 2-year employment contract with Kuwait by Al-Masiya, through its agent, Saad Mutlaq Al Asmi Domestic Staff Recruitment Office (Saad Mutlaq)/Al Dakhan Manpower where she to work as a domestic helper with a monthly salary of US$400.00.
Hazel arrived in Kuwait on 8 November 2010. Due to disagreement in the working conditions, Hazel’s employment with her first and second employers did not succeed. Her employment with her third employer also did not succeed as the latter could not obtain a working visa for her.
On 16 December 2010, Hazel went to the Philippine Embassy where she related her employment problems to a Labor Attaché in Kuwait who offered to help them.
On 5 January 2011, Hazel left the Philippine Embassy after a certain Mr. Mutlaq offered to give her a job at a chocolate factory. However, this chocolate factory turned out to be inexistent.
Then, the employees of Al Rekabi, an employment agency, told her that they would be bringing her to Hawally at night. She refused to take the trip as it was cold and drizzling. She then attempted to report the matter to the Labor Attaché using her cellular phone, but the employees of Al Rekabi confiscated it. Mr. Hassan, the Manager of Al Rekabi, did not accede to her request to postpone the trip to the following day. It came to a point where Mr. Hassan scolded Hazel and forced her to make a written admission that her employers treated her well.
Sometime after 6 January 2011, Hazel was brought to the office of Al Rekabi at Salmiya. On an unspecified date thereafter, at around 7:00 p.m., two men offered her a job at a restaurant in front of the main office of the agency. She accepted the offer. However, instead of being brought to a restaurant in Hawally, where she was supposed to work, Hazel was taken to a flat where she was told to apply makeup and wear attractive and sexy clothes. Another man joined them. Hazel was then told that she would be brought to her place of work. However, she was instead taken to an unlighted area which had buildings but no restaurant or coffee shop signboards. At the area, she saw another man walking. After recognizing that the man was an employee of Al Rekabi, she asked him to bring her to the main office of the agency. She was able to leave at around 11:00 p.m. when the three other men agreed to release her.
On 7 February 2011, Hazel was asked to affix her signature on a letter that she copied purportedly showing that she admitted having preterminated her contract of employment and that she no longer had any demandable claim as she was treated well. Hazel’s execution of this letter of resignation was made as a precondition to the release of her passport and plane ticket which were in the possession of petitioners.
Hazel arrived in the Philippines on 12 February 2011 and thereafter filed a complaint for constructive dismissal against her employer.
In response to Hazel’s complaint, the employers filed a motion to dismiss on 11 May 2011, alleging that on 7 February 2011, Hazel executed an Affidavit of Quitclaim and Desistance, Sworn Statement, and Receipt and Quitclaim before the Assistant Labor Attaché in Kuwait, where she allegedly stated that she voluntarily agreed to release her employers from all her claims arising from her employment abroad. They also presented her handwritten statement where she expressed that her cause for terminating her employment was her own personal reasons.
Was Hazel constructively dismissed from employment?
The Supreme Court stated that in cases of constructive dismissal, the impossibility, unreasonableness, or unlikelihood of continued employment leaves an employee with no other viable recourse but to terminate his or her employment. “An employee is considered to be constructively dismissed from service if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so unbea[r]able to the employee as to leave him or her with no option but to forego his or her continued employment.” From this definition, it can be inferred that various situations, whereby the employer intentionally places the employee in a situation which will result in the latter’s being coerced into severing his ties with the former, can result in constructive dismissal.1Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines, G.R. No. 229881, September 5, 2018 and Agcolicol, Jr. v. Casiño, G.R. No. 217732, June 15, 2016.
The Court found that the circumstances of the present case strongly indicated that Hazel was constructively dismissed.
First, Hazel’s foreign employer never secured a working visa for her, in violation of the categorical requirement for an employer’s accreditation with the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency.
Second, Hazel was not properly paid in accordance with the terms of her employment contract. During her 3-month stay, she was only paid US$227.75 instead of the stipulated pay of US$400 per month.
Third, Hazel was not assigned to a permanent employer abroad for the entire contractual period of 2 years. Upon her arrival in Kuwait, she was consistently promised job placements which were found to be inexistent. The Court found it clear that the foreign employer intended to use Hazel as an entertainer of some sort in places of ill repute; and she would have fallen victim to human trafficking “[w]ere it not for some favorable providence.”
Finally, Hazel was made to copy and sign a prepared resignation letter and this was made as a condition for the release of her passport and plane ticket.
For the Court, it was logical for Hazel to consider herself constructively dismissed. since the impossibility, unreasonableness, or unlikelihood of continued employment has left her with no other viable recourse but to terminate her employment. The Court further stated:
Our overseas workers belong to a disadvantaged class. Most of them come from the poorest sector of our society. Their profile shows they live in suffocating slums, trapped in an environment of crimes. Hardly literate and in ill health, their only hope lies in jobs they find with difficulty in our country. Their unfortunate circumstance makes them easy prey to avaricious employers. They will climb mountains, cross the seas, endure slave treatment in foreign lands just to survive. Out of despondence, they will work under sub-human conditions and accept salaries below the minimum. The least we can do is to protect them with our laws.
On that note, the Court reminds petitioners to observe common decency and good faith in their dealings with their unsuspecting employees, particularly in undertakings that ultimately lead to waiver of workers’ rights. The Court will not renege on its duty to protect the weak against the strong, and the gullible against the wicked, be it for labor or for capital. The Court scorns petitioners’ reprehensible conduct. As employers, petitioners are bound to observe candor and fairness in their relations with their hapless employees.
Further reading:
Al-Masiya Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Viernes, G.R. No. 216132, January 22, 2020.
On 9 April 1992, Airborne, a company engaged in providing manpower services to various clients, hired the services of Arnulfo as Janitor. He was assigned at the Balintawak Branch of Meralco, a client of Airborne.
Almost twenty years thereafter, or on 30 June 2011, the contract between Airborne and the Balintawak Branch of Meralco expired. Meralco entered into a new contract with Landbees, which absorbed employees of Airborne except Arnulfo, who allegedly had a heart ailment.
Arnulfo consulted a doctor, who declared that he was in good health and fit to work. He presented a medical certificate to Airborne, but the latter disregarded the same. He also reported for work but Airborne told him that no work was available for him.
Airborne insisted that Arnulfo was never dismissed from service because:
when its contract with the Balintawak Branch of Meralco ceased, it directed all its employees, including Arnulfo, to report to its office for reposting;
when Arnulfo failed to do so, it sent two (2) letters dated 12 August 2011 and 21 September 2011 at Arnulfo’s last known address, directing him to report to his new assignment at Meralco’s Commonwealth Business Center; and
said letters, however, were returned to sender with a notation “RTS unknown”
The Office of the Labor Arbiter dismissed Arnulfo’s complaint.
Arnulfo appealed and reiterated that he was constructively dismissed by Airborne. He pointed out that:
He made several follow-ups since 1 July 2011, but Airborne ignored him. He was not given a new assignment since then.
The letters were products of afterthought since Airborne was already aware of the constructive dismissal complaint prior to the sending of the said letters;
The letters could not possibly reach him because his address stated therein was incomplete. Arnulfo posits that such mistake was intentionally done for him not to receive the letters; and
He left his cellphone number with an administrative officer of Airborne, but never received a call from the latter.
Airborne countered that Arnulfo introduced for the first time on appeal new factual allegations, as well as spurious, fabricated and self-serving evidence which should not be given credence.
The National Labor Relations Commission reversed the findings of the Office of the Labor Arbiter and declared that Arnulfo was constructively dismissed from employment.
The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the Commission.
Ruling:
Arnulfo was constructively dismissed from employment.
The Supreme Court ruled that Airborne denied Arnulfo his employment because he had a heart ailment. Despite the declaration that he was fit to work, Airborne still did not give him any assignment.
To give semblance of legality to their act of not giving him an assignment, Airborne sent him two (2) letters with an incomplete address after the filing of the constructive dismissal complaint. The sending of the letters were products of afterthought. However, an “[a]fterthought cannot be given weight or credibility.”1Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 148893, July 12, 2006.
The Court was not convinced of the Airborne’s sincerity to give him a new assignment, for there was reason to believe that the incomplete address was intentionally done so that Arnulfo would not receive it and Airborne can thus set up the defense that it had the intention to have the complainant reposted by sending the letters.
On Airborne’s claim that Arnulfo was only placed on floating status under Article 301 of the Labor Code of the Philippines2ARTICLE 301. (Formerly Article 286) When Employment not Deemed Terminated. — The bonafide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or the fulfillment by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not terminate employment. In all such cases, the employer shall reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not later than one (1) month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty..
Jurisprudence3Lopez v. Irvine Construction Corp., G.R. No. 207253, August 20, 2014. dictates that:
The employer must prove the existence of a clear and compelling economic reason for the temporary shutdown of its business or undertaking and that there were no available posts to which the affected employee could be assigned; and
It should notify the Department of Labor and Employment and the affected employee, at least one month prior to the intended date of suspension of business operations.
The Supreme Court found that Airborne failed to prove that the termination of the contract with Meralco resulted in a bona fide suspension of its business operations so as to validly place Arnulfo in a floating status. Airborne did not show that after the termination of its contract with Meralco, it was faced with a clear and compelling economic reason to temporarily shut down its operations or a particular undertaking. It also failed to show that there were no available posts to which Arnulfo could be assigned.
Airborne also failed to show compliance with the notice requirement to the Department of Labor and Employment and to Arnulfo.
Jurisprudence4Morales v. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc., G.R. No. 174208, January 25, 2012.dictates that constructive dismissal is a dismissal in disguise as it is an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not.
In the present case, the Court found that the totality of the foregoing circumstances, specifically, Airborne’s
failure to prove the bona fide suspension of its business or undertaking;
failure to inform the Department of Labor and Employment, as well as Arnulfo, of the suspension of its operations,
act of ignoring Arnulfo’s follow-ups on a new assignment, and
belated sending of letters/notices which were returned to it
were done to make it appear as if Arnulfo had not been dismissed. According to the Court, such acts, however, clearly amounted to a dismissal, for which Airborne should be liable.
Further reading:
Airborne Maintenance and Allied Services, Inc. v. Egos, G.R. No. 222748, April 3, 2019.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
