The Supreme Court ruled that Mariano Atienza and Santiago Asi were constructively dismissed when their employer, R.P. Dinglasan Construction, Inc., offered them reassignment to a position with a lower pay and no guaranteed hours, effectively demoting them. This made their continued employment unreasonable, entitling them to backwages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees. The court emphasized that employers must prove valid cause for dismissal, and the employees’ actions indicated a clear intention to continue working, not to abandon their jobs.
Demotion or Departure? Janitors Fight for Fair Treatment After Job Restructuring
R.P. Dinglasan Construction, Inc. appealed the Court of Appeals decision, which upheld the finding of constructive dismissal against them. Atienza and Asi, long-time janitors for Dinglasan assigned to Pilipinas Shell Refinery Corporation, claimed their employment was effectively terminated when Dinglasan lost the bidding for janitorial services and offered them lower-paying positions without guaranteed hours. Dinglasan countered that the employees abandoned their posts by not submitting requirements for reinstatement. The core legal question was whether the change in employment terms constituted constructive dismissal and whether the employees had genuinely abandoned their jobs.
Petitioner’s claim of abandonment was not supported by evidence. Abandonment requires both the failure to report for work without justifiable reason and a clear intention to sever the employment relationship. Here, the evidence showed that private respondents reported back to the office, sought intervention from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), and submitted the required documents for reinstatement. This indicates a strong desire to continue their employment, not abandon it. Moreover, the barangay councilman’s testimony further bolstered the respondents’ claims. The testimony revealed the barangay councilman accompanied private respondents to petitioner’s office at least ten times to negotiate their redeployment on acceptable terms.
Constructive dismissal occurs when continued employment becomes impossible or unreasonable, such as when the offer of employment involves demotion in rank or diminution of pay. In this case, the offer to reassign the employees to another company with no guaranteed working hours and minimum wage was deemed a constructive dismissal. The terms were unacceptable to the employees because it would demote them in status and reduce their pay. Furthermore, petitioner withdrew its offer of reinstatement and refused to engage with private respondents to dismiss them instead. Consequently, petitioner acted without cause and acted unlawfully. In the labor arena, employers have the burden of providing adequate and just cause for firing workers. In the absence of this proof, labor judgements are decided in favor of labor to ensure the protection and rights of the laborers.
The Supreme Court emphasized the employer’s responsibility in dismissal cases, stating: “In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee is for a valid cause.” Here, the employer failed to prove that the employees deliberately and unjustifiably refused to resume their employment, demonstrating the critical importance of proper documentation and fair treatment of employees. In sum, employers need to ensure valid reason to fire workers, and a shift to poorer working conditions qualifies for constructive dismissal.
The court also addressed the issue of the monetary award, noting that the petitioner raised questions about the computation for the first time on appeal. Issues not raised in the lower courts cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because doing so would prejudice basic rules of fairness and justice. Because the computation of the award granted to the respondents involves evaluating facts, the Supreme Court held it could not evaluate this question for the first time. As such, the factual questions could not be appealed. As such, the finality of awards and the protection of employees’ rights are paramount in labor disputes, highlighting the need for timely and comprehensive legal challenges.
FAQs
| What is constructive dismissal? | Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer makes working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. This can include demotions, pay cuts, or other significant changes in employment terms. |
| What is abandonment of work? | Abandonment of work requires an employee to fail to report for work without a justifiable reason and a clear intention to sever the employment relationship, demonstrated through overt acts. Mere absence is not enough to constitute abandonment. |
| What was the key evidence against the claim of abandonment? | The evidence included the employees’ repeated attempts to return to work, their seeking intervention from DOLE, their submission of required documents, and the barangay councilman’s testimony, all showing a desire to continue employment. |
| Who has the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases? | In illegal dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a valid cause. |
| Why couldn’t the monetary award be challenged on appeal? | The monetary award computation was a factual issue that should have been raised in the lower courts. It cannot be raised for the first time on appeal due to rules of fairness and justice. |
| What is the significance of offering minimum wage in a new position? | Offering minimum wage when the original employment offered higher pay constitutes a demotion in pay, contributing to constructive dismissal. |
| What is the role of DOLE in labor disputes? | DOLE acts as an intermediary in settling labor disputes. By the court determining DOLE’s interventions held credence in supporting the worker’s claims, employers could take greater initiative to work alongside DOLE. |
| What benefits are illegally dismissed employees entitled to? | Illegally dismissed employees are entitled to full backwages, benefits from the time of dismissal until the decision, separation pay, 13th-month pay, attorney’s fees, and other applicable monetary awards. |
This case clarifies the importance of fair labor practices and upholds the rights of employees against unfair treatment. Employers must ensure any changes in employment terms are reasonable and do not amount to constructive dismissal. By respecting employee rights and addressing concerns openly, employers can create a fair and productive work environment that complies with the law.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: R.P. DINGLASAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. vs. MARIANO ATIENZA AND SANTIAGO ASI, G.R. No. 156104, June 29, 2004
Leave a Reply