While, on one hand, the law protects the prerogatives of employers to discipline and dismiss their erring, dishonest, incompetent, and grossly negligent employees, the workers, on the other hand, are enjoying the fullest protection of the Constitution, the Labor Code and well-settled labor jurisprudence, especially on their fundamental right to security of tenure. That is why whenever management subjects an employee to harassment, intimidation, coercion or subjects him to grave insult and ridicule, pushing the worker to resignation, that is, in the eyes of the law, a clear case of constructive firing, thus, illegal dismissal. When found by the labor tribunals and the higher courts, the remedies are reinstatement, full backwages, and in proper cases, moral and exemplary damages, plus attorneys’ fees.
In the case of Grande vs PNTC (GR 213137) just decided by the Supreme Court on March 1 2017, the highest court of the land enunciated once again the need to respect the employees’ right to security of tenure. The Supreme Court held that the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal would be the best evidence that contradicts what employers allege as voluntary resignation. In this case, the employee was subjected to an investigation for certain alleged offense. Then in the middle of due process, suddenly the employee tendered a very terse, curt and hurriedly done resignation. The clearance to facilitate her exit was rushed and she was allowed to go even when she had some unpaid accounts.
The Supreme Court asked: If the employee was being investigated for an administrative case, why was she cleared of all liabilities in a rather hurried manner? The haste was seen as betraying the true intent of management to let her disappear quickly. Resignation should be voluntary, not compelled on the employee. The Court took into consideration all the contemporaneous acts in determining the voluntariness or lack of it in the alleged resignation. The Court held that the vigorous pursuit for reliefs from the illegal dismissal case, the passionate fight that the employee put up in the NLRC was indicative of lack of voluntariness in her so-called resignation.
Because the Supreme Court ruled that there was no resignation, but illegal dismissal, the complainant was granted reinstatement to her position without loss of seniority rights, much less diminution in salaries and benefits. She was also given full backwages to cover her pay from the day of dismissal to the day of actual reinstatement. Backwages includes not just basic pay but all allowances and benefits and the monetary equivalent of all the privileges that she missed. Backwages, even if it would last for twenty years, is without tax, and would earn interest of 6 percent per annum. That is why management should exercise extraordinary caution, prudence and carefulness in the discipline and dismissal of employees. If they don’t know the mechanics, they should ask the experts. Better to be to be careful than be sorry. Labor tribunals are there to protect labor, without, however, oppressing management.