BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
RHODA R. AMOR, ET AL. VS. CONSTANT PACKAGING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 259988 (MAY 19, 2025): THE ACT OF PREVENING AN EMPLOYEE FROM REPORTING TO WORK IS CONSIDERED DISMISSAL, AND THE LACK OF JUST OR AUTHORIZED CAUSE AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS MAKES IT ILLEGAL
Constant Packaging Corporation hired Rhoda R. Amor (Amor), Lourdes R. Balanquit (Balanquit), Gloria G. Narag (Narag), Jovelyn G. Bueno (Bueno), Agnes B. Ricerra (Ricerra), Valentina H. Adalid (Adalid), Elynor R. Romero (Elynor), Maria Fe J. Claro (Claro), Elizabeth C. Catulay (Catulay), Celestina V. Magtolis (Magtolis), Jonalyn R. Romero (Jonalyn), Jasmin B. Borlagdatan-Arambulo (Arambulo), Marissa C. Busel (Busel), and Glenda M Tordillo (Tordillo), collectively as Amor, et al. as sorters, revisers, and packers on pakyaw basis. Constant Packaging is engaged in the business of printing packaging materials.
Petitioners Amor, et al. raised their grievances to the Management but were told to leave their jobs if they were dissatisfied with the working conditions. Tension escalated when two of Amor’s companions, Narag and Balanquit, were prevented from entering company premises after failing to attend the Company Christmas Party. Petitioners Amor and Arambulo were also barred from entering work premises because the management did not like it when two raised concerns about their below minimum wage, 12-hour workday, 7-day work week, non-remittance 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 (DOLE). When Constant Packaging’s management received summons from the DOLE, petitioners Bueno, Ricerra, Adalid, Elynor, Jonalyn, Claro, Catulay, and Magtolis were also prevented from entering the plant. As to petitioners Busel and Tordillo, the two resigned from their posts for health reasons and the pressure from their supervisor, Imelda Vea.
For Constant Packaging, it asserted that petitioners Amor, et al. were hired on pakyaw basis and that the Company does not have the control of their work hours or time they will work. Constant Packaging averred that the workers were made to work for 12 hours and that their daily wage was below the minimum wage. The Labor Arbiter found for petitioners Amor, et al. and ruled that they were regular employees of Constant Packaging, and except Busel and Tordillo, they were illegally dismissed. The National Labor Relations Commission, while finding them to be regular employees, held that the act of barring them from entering the workplace cannot be equated to an overt act of dismissal. The NLRC thus ordered the workers to return to work and for Constant Packaging to accept them back. The Petition for Certiorari of petitioners Amor, et al. was likewise denied, hence, the recourse to the Supreme Court.
Citing the case of Hubilla vs. HSY Marketing Ltd., Co., G.R. No. 207354 (January 10, 2018), the Supreme Court held that the employer failed to establish that there was abandonment and the fact that petitioners Amor, et al. were prevented from entering the workplace equates that they were illegally dismissed. In the case of Hubilla vs. HSY Marketing Ltd., Co., supra, the Supreme Court likewise found the workers to have been illegally dismissed since they were barred from entering the employer’s stores:
“There is likewise no proof that petitioners abandoned their employment. To constitute abandonment, the employer must prove that “first, the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and second, [that] there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt act.
Abandonment is essentially a matter of intent. It cannot be presumed from the occurrence of certain equivocal acts. There must be a positive and overt act signifying an employee’s deliberate intent to sever his or her employment. Thus, mere absence from work, even after a notice to return, is insufficient to prove abandonment. The employer must show that the employee unjustifiably refused to report for work and that the employee deliberately intended to sever the employer-employee relation. Furthermore, there must be a concurrence of these two (2) elements. Absent this concurrence, there can be no abandonment.”
In the instant case, the Supreme Court reinstated the findings of the Labor Arbiter that petitioners Amor, et al. may not have been allowed to enter work premises of Constant Packaging because the security guards were stationed at its gate and the security guard controls entrance and exit from the company premises. The respondent failed to convincingly argue that petitioners Amor, et al. were not prevented by the security guards to enter company premises.