Amor v. Constant Packaging Corporation (2015)

Amor et al. v. Constant Packaging Corporation, G.R. No. 259988, May 19, 2015, Per Leonen, J.:

1. Background

• Constant Packaging Corporation (Constant Packaging) hired Amor et al. as sorters, revisers, and packers on pakyaw basis. Constant Packaging is engaged in printing packaging materials. William Chan is its chairperson, and Virginia Chan is a stockholder.

• 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 delays in the release of their salaries. They reported these concerns to the Department of Labor and Employment.8 When Constant Packaging’s management received summons from the Department of Labor and Employment, Bueno, Ricerra, Adalid, Elynor, Jonalyn, Claro, Catulay, and Magtolis were also prevented from entering the plant.

• As to Busel and Tordillo, the two resigned from their posts because of health reasons and the pressure from their supervisor, Imelda Vea.

• For its part, Constant Packaging claimed that the company never dismissed Amor et al. since they were allowed to work anytime on a pakyaw basis. The company also claimed that it did not control their hours of work. Time-in and time-out were not required, and they were not disciplined for producing little to no output. Thus, Constant Packaging asserted that no

employer-employee relationship existed. They also rejected the claim that the workers were made to work 12 hours a day and that their daily wage was below the minimum wage.

2. SC Decision/Resolution

• To be sure, we affirm 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:

• The respondents allege that the complainants may work anytime and they may stop working anytime without any sanction; and they are not barred from doing pakyaw work.

• The complainants allege that they were barred by respondent’s security guard from entering the plant premises.

• Respondents, in its Reply, mentioned about its security guard who controlled entry and exit of workers from company premises.

• Complainants, in their Reply, stress that the Plant Manager, Roderic Badua, instructed the security guard of the respondent not to allow the entries of the complainants.

• The allegations of the complainants that they were not allowed of entry to respondent work premises [sic] are possible because the respondents station security guards at the company gate.

• Respondents imply, in its Reply, that employees or visitors cannot enter the company premises without security passes from the security guards.

• 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 guards at its gate and the security guard control entrance and exit from the company premises.

• However, as to petitioners Busel and Tordillo, we affirm the uniform findings of the labor tribunal and the Court of Appeals that they were unable to substantiate their claim of oppressive conduct resulting in their constructive 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. 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. In other words, the resignation is prompted by external factors within the control of the employer and not borne out of the employee’s free choice.

• In this case, petitioners Busel and Tordillo were unable to discharge this burden. The labor arbiter, National Labor Relations Commission, and the Court of Appeals are consistent in their factual findings. At any rate, respondents are correct to point out that the original complaint was for illegal dismissal, which, as discussed, raises an issue different from a claim of constructive dismissal.