Supreme Court: Forcing workers to quit constitutes illegal dismissal

MANILA – The Philippine Supreme Court has ordered a car company to pay back the wages and commissions owed to a former employee who was forced to resign due to the company’s “unbearable” working conditions.

The High Court ruled in favour of the worker who said he had no intention of quitting but was forced to leave the company because of the behaviour of his superiors.

The Court was convinced the employer’s misreatment made it difficult for the worker to continue at the company.

Pressuring the worker to quit thus constituted constructive illegal dismissal.

“Petitioner’s resignation was brought about by respondents’ acts of disdain and hostility toward him, rendering his continued employment with respondents impossible, nay, unbearable,” the Supreme Court said in a 20-page ruling.

Insulted and demoted

The petitioner – a tenured sales agent – was first suspended for his absences in 2015. On his return to work, he sought legal counsel from his siblings who represented him in a meeting with the management. 

The employee, however, was mocked by the company president for doing so.

After the incident, the petitioner claimed he was demoted, removed from his sales accounts for no reason, and asked by a new manager about his plans to resign. The questioning allegedly prompted him to leave the company in 2016.

The petitioner filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter, which sided with him over the circumstances of his departure. However, the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeals, which claimed the resignation was voluntary.

Also Read: Supreme Court warns against dismissing HIV+ staff

Liable for the employee's financial losses

Ruling with finality, the Supreme Court said the employee would have stayed if the management had not created a hostile work environment.

The Court ruled company officials are thus liable to the petitioner for the financial losses he incurred from his illegal dismissal.

The company will have to compensate the former employee with his full backwages from April 2016, on top of a severance package amounting to one month’s salary for every year of service rendered since 2009 until the date of the final ruling.

The company will also have to pay commissions owed to the petitioner, as well as his moral and exemplary damages and legal fees.