Have you experienced a hostile working environment? It is a dilemma on the part of the employee. Majority will resign and look for another job. Few will bear the insult, swallow the pride and continue working for economic reason. What is the best option in this situation? If one only knows that the law always protects one’s right, especially the weak, a different path may have been chosen. The law gives a better alternative, even if one has already resigned. What one must only do is fight not only for his right but also for what is right. Otherwise, the law will be meaningless, if not rendered useless.
An employee has a constitutional right to security of tenure. Section 3,
Article XIII, of the 1987 Constitution provides that “the State shall afford full protection to labor xxx. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers xxx. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. xxx.” Security of tenure refers to the right of employees not to be dismissed without just or authorized cause, as found in Articles 297.(282), 298.(282) and 299.(282) of the Labor Code, and [2] after observance of due process, which requires notice and hearing. There must be two-notices: first notice stating the reason why one is being terminated and asking him to explain and second notice stating the decision of and the factual and legal basis for termination.
There are times that employers or their managers make the work of their employees difficult just to force them to resign. What if one resigns but regrets it later, can he get back or can a resigned employee sue the employer for illegal dismissal? Our Honorable Supreme Court ruled the issue when it uploaded on September 27, 2024 in its website the case of Bartolome v. Toyota Quezon Ave. Inc., et. al., G.R. No. 254465 dated April 3, 2024. In this case, TQAI hired Bartolome in 2009 as a marketing professional trainee to sell cars. He was regularized in 2010. He received a notice to explain his habitual absence with notice of seven- day suspension in 2015. In a meeting with managers, his lawyer- brother assisted him. Thinking that everything was settled, he was surprised the President of the company uttered unsavory remarks – humiliating him in public during a meeting. This started his ordeal. He was transferred to another team. His accounts were taken without explanation. TQAI’s general sales manager turned down his attempt to process a sale. His new boss asked him to resign.
Due to hostile working environment that he endured everyday and made it unbearable to continue working, thus he resigned in March 2016. The harassment continued when TQAI only released his clearance after three months and his last salary was not paid in full. He sued for illegal dismissal. The employer argued that he resigned.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that since his resignation was not voluntary, it amounted to constructive dismissal. It ordered TQAI and its officials to pay backwages, moral damage and attorney’s fee that totaled to P500,000. TQAI appealed. The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the LA’s decision. TQAI appealed again. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC. It ruled that sarcastic comments and unpleasant remarks do not qualify as clear discrimination. This time, Bartolome appealed.
The Supreme Court ruled that actions demonstrating extreme dislike and hostile behavior such as demotion, uttering insulting words and apathetic behavior toward an employee will constitute constructive illegal dismissal when such actions cause the employment conditions to be so unbearable that there is no other choice but to resign. The standard for constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt forced to give up his work under the circumstances. While strong words may be exchanged in the workplace due to disagreements, these should not degrade the dignity of employees to avoid a hostile work environment.
The Court found the actions of TQAI’s senior officials to Bartolome demonstrated extreme dislike and hostile behavior. These actions taken collectively indicated that they were pushing him out, leaving him with no choice except to resign. The employee would not have intended to resign without the officials’ hostile actions. Thus, a resigned employee can still sue for illegal dismissal. When a resignation is not voluntary, there is illegal constructive dismissal. Bartolome was awarded P1,340,770.86 as full backwages, P176,060.82 as separation pay, P92,000 unpaid commission, P70,000 as moral damages and P167,000 as 10% attorney’s fee to earn 6% annual interest from finality of the decision.
