When Silence or Inaction Equals Termination: Understanding Constructive Dismissal in Philippine Labor Law

TLDR: This case clarifies constructive dismissal, emphasizing that employers cannot evade responsibility by claiming an employee abandoned their job if the employer’s actions made continued employment untenable. Refusal to reinstate an employee after an incident, coupled with suggesting they seek other work, constitutes constructive dismissal, entitling the employee to backwages and reinstatement.

G.R. No. 116568, September 03, 1999

INTRODUCTION

Imagine being told by your boss to take a “vacation” or “look for another job” after a workplace incident, only to later be accused of abandoning your post when you don’t show up. This is the predicament Carlito Lacson faced, highlighting a crucial aspect of Philippine labor law: constructive dismissal. Beyond outright firing, employers can effectively terminate employment through actions that make working conditions unbearable or signal the end of the employment relationship. This case of Delfin Garcia vs. National Labor Relations Commission underscores that employers cannot use technicalities to circumvent their responsibilities when their conduct leads an employee to believe their job is over. The core issue revolves around whether Delfin Garcia, doing business as NAPCO-LUZMART, Inc., constructively dismissed Carlito Lacson, and what constitutes such dismissal under Philippine law.

LEGAL CONTEXT: CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL AND ABANDONMENT

Philippine labor law protects employees from unfair dismissal. While employers have the right to manage their workforce, this right is not absolute. One key protection is against “constructive dismissal.” This legal concept, not explicitly defined in the Labor Code but well-established through jurisprudence, recognizes that dismissal can occur even without explicit termination. Constructive dismissal happens when an employer’s actions, though not a direct firing, create working conditions so intolerable or adverse that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. It is considered an involuntary resignation, essentially a disguised termination initiated by the employer.

The Supreme Court has defined constructive dismissal as “quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; as an offer involving a demotion in rank and diminution in pay.” This encompasses various scenarios, from demotions and pay cuts to hostile work environments and, as in this case, actions that clearly signal the employer’s intention to end the employment relationship.

Conversely, “abandonment” is a valid ground for termination initiated by the employee. For abandonment to be legally recognized, two elements must concur:

1. Failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason.
2. A clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship.

The second element, the intention to abandon, is crucial and must be demonstrated by overt acts. The burden of proving abandonment rests with the employer. Critically, filing a case for illegal dismissal is generally considered strong evidence against the claim of abandonment, as it demonstrates the employee’s desire to maintain, not sever, the employment relationship.

Article 297 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code outlines just causes for termination by an employer, including “serious misconduct.” This is relevant in the context of the fighting incident in this case, as the employer initially cited the incident as grounds for disciplinary action. However, even for just causes, procedural due process is mandatory, requiring two notices: one informing the employee of the charges and another informing them of the decision to terminate.

CASE BREAKDOWN: LACSON’S UNWANTED ‘VACATION’

Carlito Lacson worked as a boiler operator technician for NAPCO-LUZMART, Inc. A workplace altercation with his supervisor, Julius Viray, led to a suspension order for both. However, the sequence of events following this incident became the crux of the case.

Here’s a timeline of the critical events:

• January 28, 1993: The mauling incident between Lacson and Viray occurs.
• February 1, 1993: Lacson submits his written explanation of the incident.
• February 4, 1993: Lacson reports for work but is allegedly refused entry and told to take a vacation or look for another job by Delfin Garcia.
• February 11, 1993: Lacson files an illegal dismissal case with the NLRC.
• March 31, 1993: NAPCO-LUZMART issues a suspension order to Lacson, effective April 15, 1993, also requiring him to explain his absences since February 15, 1993.

The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC both ruled in favor of Lacson, finding constructive dismissal. They highlighted the implausibility of the employer’s claim that Lacson abandoned his job. The NLRC decision stated:

“As we have discussed earlier, the complainant herein was constructively dismissed from his employment by respondent Delfin Garcia because of the latter’s refusal to admit him back to work inspite of the complainant’s insistence to resume his work after he has given his explanation.”

The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC’s decision. The Court dismissed NAPCO-LUZMART’s argument that Lacson was merely suspended and had abandoned his employment. The timing of the suspension order, issued after Lacson had already filed an illegal dismissal case, was deemed suspicious and self-serving. The Court noted:

“LUZMART’s claim that LACSON was merely suspended and was still employed by LUZMART does not convince us that LACSON was not dismissed from his employment. Said claim was a mere afterthought to preempt or thwart the impending illegal dismissal case filed by LACSON against LUZMART.”

The Court emphasized that Lacson’s absence was not voluntary abandonment but a direct consequence of the employer’s refusal to allow him to work. The act of filing an illegal dismissal case just days after being turned away from work further solidified the finding of constructive dismissal and negated any claim of abandonment.

Regarding the fighting incident, the Supreme Court agreed that while fighting in company premises can be serious misconduct, not every altercation warrants dismissal, especially when the employee acted in self-defense, as was deemed to be the case with Lacson. Furthermore, the Court pointed out the employer’s failure to comply with the two-notice requirement for termination, further solidifying the illegality of the dismissal.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROTECTING EMPLOYEE RIGHTS AGAINST DISGUISED DISMISSALS

This case serves as a strong reminder to employers to act transparently and fairly in employee relations. Attempting to circumvent illegal dismissal claims through technicalities like claiming abandonment when the employer’s own actions led to the employee’s absence will not hold up in court. The case also provides crucial guidance for employees facing similar situations.

Key Lessons for Employers:

• Avoid Ambiguous Actions: Do not tell employees to take “vacations” or “look for other jobs” if you intend to continue their employment. Such actions can be interpreted as a signal to leave, leading to constructive dismissal claims.
• Timely and Clear Communication: Issue disciplinary actions and suspension orders promptly and before an employee files a case for illegal dismissal. Delayed actions may be viewed with suspicion.
• Procedural Due Process is Non-Negotiable: Even for just causes of termination, strictly adhere to the two-notice requirement. Failure to do so can render a dismissal illegal, regardless of the validity of the cause.
• Investigate Fairly: When dealing with workplace incidents, conduct thorough and impartial investigations. Consider all sides of the story before imposing disciplinary measures.

Key Lessons for Employees:

• Document Everything: Keep records of all communications, incidents, and attempts to report for work, especially if you are being prevented from working.
• Act Promptly: If you believe you have been constructively dismissed, file a case for illegal dismissal promptly. This demonstrates your intent to keep your job and counters any potential abandonment claims.
• Seek Legal Advice: If you are unsure about your rights or your employer’s actions, consult with a labor lawyer immediately.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: What is the difference between constructive dismissal and illegal dismissal?

A: Illegal dismissal is the broader term for termination without just cause or due process. Constructive dismissal is a specific type of illegal dismissal where the employer, instead of directly firing the employee, makes working conditions so unbearable that the employee is forced to resign. In both cases, the dismissal is illegal if not justified under the Labor Code.

Q: Can an employer claim abandonment if they told the employee to stop coming to work?

A: No. As this case shows, if the employer’s actions (like refusing entry or suggesting the employee look for another job) cause the employee’s absence, the employer cannot then claim abandonment. Abandonment requires a voluntary and unjustified absence, coupled with a clear intention to sever employment.

Q: What are backwages and reinstatement?

A: Backwages are the wages an illegally dismissed employee should have earned from the time of dismissal until reinstatement. Reinstatement is the restoration of the employee to their former position without loss of seniority rights and benefits. The court may order reinstatement or, if reinstatement is not feasible, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.

Q: What is the two-notice rule in termination?

A: The two-notice rule mandates that for a valid dismissal based on just cause, the employer must provide two written notices to the employee: (1) a notice of intent to dismiss, stating the grounds, and (2) a notice of dismissal after a hearing or opportunity to be heard, informing the employee of the decision to terminate.

Q: If I file an illegal dismissal case, can my employer still claim I abandoned my job?

A: It is highly unlikely. Filing an illegal dismissal case is a strong indication that you do not intend to abandon your job but rather want to keep it. Courts generally view this action as contradictory to the element of intent required for abandonment.

Q: Does fighting at work always justify dismissal?

A: Not necessarily. While fighting can be serious misconduct, the context matters. If an employee acted in self-defense or was provoked, dismissal may not be warranted. A fair investigation is crucial to determine the circumstances of the fight.

ASG Law specializes in Labor Law and Employment Disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.