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 packing is engaged in printing packaging materials.
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 were 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, non-remittance of their SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG contributions, as well as the delay in the release of their salaries. They reported these concerns to the DOLE. When Constant Packaging received a summons from the DOLE, some of the petitioners herein were also prevented from entering the plant.
For its part, Constant Packaging claimed that the company never dismissed the petitioners, since they were allowed to work anytime on a pakyaw basis.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the workers, declaring them regular employees, and found that they were illegally dismissed. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the finding that the petitioners were regular employees, but reversed the finding of illegal dismissal. Amor, et. al. moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the NLRC. When they filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, the latter dismissed the same.
Hence, the present petition.
Respondents argue that the “best evidence of dismissal is the written notice,” and if there is none, the burden is on the employee to prove the fact of dismissal. On this point, respondents assert that there could be no illegal dismissal because petitioners were not notified of their dismissal, nor were they prevented from coming to work.
ISSUE: Whether the act of barring the employees from entering the workplace is considered illegal dismissal.
Ruling
YES. 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’ insistence that the absence of a written notice proves that there was no dismissal is precisely the issue here. These 12 petitioners’ services were abruptly terminated without undergoing the necessary processes and without just cause. Respondents cannot put the burden on these petitioners when it is their own lack of compliance with legal requirements that makes the dismissal illegal.
The Court affirms the finding of fact by the labor arbiter that petitioners were indeed prevented by respondents’ security guard from entering the company premises and rendering work, which constitutes an overt act of dismissal. In the Labor Arbiter’s Decision:
“x x x
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 guard 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.”
The Court finds that the 12 petitioners were ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.