doctrine
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.
Facts
Constant Packaging Corporation (Constant Packaging) hired Amor et al. as sorters, revisers, and packers on pakyaw basis. Constant Packaging is engaged in printing packaging materials. William Chan is its chairperson, and Virginia Chan is a stockholder.
Amor et al. aired their grievances via petition to Constant Packaging’s management, but they were told to leave their jobs if they were dissatisfied with the working conditions. Tensions escalated when Narag and Balanquit werė prevented from entering the company premises after failing to attend the company Christmas Party.
Amor and Arambulo were also barred from entering work premises because the management did not like it when the two raised concerns about their below minimum wage, 12-hour work day, 7-day work week, nonremittance of their SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG contributions, as well as delays in the release of their salaries. They reported these concerns to the Department of Labor and Employment. When Constant Packaging’s management received a summons from the Department of Labor and Employment, Bueno, Ricerra, Adalid, Elynor, Jonalyn, Claro, Catulay, and Magtolis were also prevented from entering the plant.
For its part, Constant Packaging claimed that the company never dismissed Amor et al. since they were allowed to work anytime on a pakyaw basis. The company also claimed that it did not control their hours of work. Time-in and time-out were not required, and they were not disciplined for producing little to no output. Thus, Constant Packaging asserted that no employer-employee relationship existed. They also rejected the claim that the workers were made to work 12 hours a day and that their daily wage was below the minimum wage.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the workers, declaring them regular employees. The labor arbiter found that the workers, except for Busel and Tordillo, were illegally dismissed.
On appeal by both parties, the National Labor Relations Commission agreed with the labor arbiter that the workers were regular employees but reversed the finding of illegal dismissal. The Commission found that the fact of dismissal was not proven, as the act of barring the workers from entering the workplace “cannot be construed as an overt act of termination” of employment. Thus, the Commission ordered the workers to return to work and for the company to accept them back.
ISSUE: Whether or not the workers are considered to have been illegally dismissed
Ruling
No, the CA did not err in affirming the RTC Decision.
The Supreme Court affirmed the labor arbiter’s factual finding that petitioners were prevented by respondents’ security guard from entering the company premises and performing their work, which amounts to an overt act of dismissal, taking into consideration the Labor Arbiter’s decision:
“The respondents allege that the complainants may work anytime and they may stop working anytime without any sanction; and they are not barred from doing pakyaw work.
The complainants allege that they were barred by respondent’s security guard from entering the plant premises.
Respondents, in its Reply, mentioned about its security guard who controlled entry and exit of workers from company premises. Complainants, in their Reply, stress that the Plant Manager, Roderic Badua, instructed the security guard of the respondent not allow the entries of the complainants. to of The allegations of the complainants that they were not allowed entry to respondent work premises [sic] are possible because the respondents station security guards at the company gate.
Respondents imply, in its Reply, that employees or visitors cannot enter the company premises without security passes from the security guards.
Simply put, the contention of the complainants, that they were not allowed to enter the work premises of the respondents by the security guards, is possible because respondents station security guards at its gate and the security guard control entrance and exit from the company premises.
The respondent failed to convincingly argue that the complainants were not prevented by the security guards to enter the company premises.
Hence, it may be safe to conclude that the complainants were terminated from the service because they were not allowed to report for work.”
However, as to petitioners Busel and Tordillo, we affirm the uniform findings of the labor tribunal and the Court of Appeals that they were unable to substantiate their claim of oppressive conduct resulting in their constructive dismissal.