The Supreme Court has ruled that barring employees from the workplace without a valid reason amounts to illegal dismissal.
In a May 19, 2025 decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the high court’s Second Division upheld labor arbiters’ findings that 12 workers of Constant Packaging Corp. were illegally dismissed.
The employees, hired as sorters and packers on a pakyaw (per output) basis, had complained about sub-minimum wages, 12-hour shifts seven days a week, and non-remittance of SSS, PhilHealth and Pag-IBIG contributions.
After filing a case before the Department of Labor and Employment, they were denied entry to the factory by a company security guard.
The company argued the workers were not dismissed and could return under their original pakyaw arrangement, insisting denial of entry did not equate to termination.
The National Labor Relations Commission had partially granted the workers’ plea but denied their motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals later affirmed the NLRC ruling.
The employees then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
The ruling
The tribunal reversed the lower rulings, stressing that when an employee ready and willing to work is blocked without lawful cause, ‘it is a clear act of illegal dismissal.’
‘Thus, while voluntary resignation of the employee should be proven by the employer, the burden to prove the circumstances that led to the constructive dismissal is on the employee,’ the court said.
‘These circumstances that constitute discriminatory acts, insensibility, or disdain towards the employee should be clearly shown in evidence, such that the working environment created by the employer leaves the employee no other choice but to resign,’ it added.
In this case, the court ruled that the guard’s refusal to let workers in was itself an act of dismissal.
Since the termination was abrupt and without due process, the dismissal was unlawful.
Relief granted. The high court ordered Constant Packaging to pay the employees separation pay, back wages, service incentive leave and holiday pay.
However, it held that since they were on a pakyaw basis, they were not entitled to 13th-month pay.