Ian Alfredo Magno
MOST workers who have high job satisfaction, despite the meager salary, tend to have pleasant professional rapport with their bosses. In contrast, we sometimes find employees who, though stationed in high-paying jobs, do not seem satisfied. At a certain point, we candidly learn somehow that they simply quit their post. Then we realize there is more to it than just the high pay-check. Among such factors could be work stress, too much pressure, discord among colleagues, tough nature of the job, or management style.
Hence, in a work setting, management style is a crucial factor in determining individual job satisfaction, which ultimately translates to employee productivity. On the other hand, according to statistics, one of the top reasons for employee resignations is a terrible boss.
Article 300 of the renumbered Labor Code of the Philippines, pursuant to Department Advisory No. 1, series of 2015 of the Department of Labor and Employment, holds that: “(a) An employee may terminate without just cause the employee-employer relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at least one month in advance. The employer upon whom no such notice was served may hold the employee liable for damages.”
Resignation may either be express or implied, as can be inferred from the employee’s actions. In order to be valid, it must be unconditional. It must have the intent to relinquish and accompanied by an act of relinquishment. However, when an employee resigns merely by force of circumstance – such as constant indignation by a superior – there is no valid resignation. Rather, there is illegal dismissal, particularly, constructive dismissal.
In the case of Madrigalejos vs. Geminilou Trucking G.R. No. 179174 dated 24 December 2008 the Supreme Court held that: “Constructive dismissal is a cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his job under the circumstances.”
In ruling that an employee is entitled to backwages and reinstatement or, in lieu thereof, separation pay, the Supreme Court held in the case of Reyes vs. RP Guardians Security G.R. 193756 dated 10 April 2013 citing the case of Aliling vs. Feliciano, to wit: “Thus, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs: backwages and reinstatement. The two reliefs provided are separate and distinct. In instances where reinstatement is no longer feasible because of strained relations between the employee and the employer, separation pay is granted. In effect, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable, and backwages.”
Question: may a police blotter be upheld in evidence to prove constructive dismissal? – Yes.
In the case of McMer Corp. vs NLRC G.R. No. 193421 dated 4 June 2014, where the employee proceeded to a police precinct and had his boss’ indignation recorded in a police blotter, the Supreme Court held: “It must be remembered that although police blotters are of little probative value, they are nevertheless admitted and considered in the absence of competent evidence to refute the facts stated therein. Entries in police records made by a police officer in the performance of the duty especially enjoined by law are prima facie evidence of the fact therein stated, and their probative value may be either substantiated or nullified by other competent evidence.
“... Well-entrenched is the rule that the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in quasi-judicial bodies is substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might opine otherwise.”
In a nutshell, therefore, treating employees well is not only in accord with the golden rule, more importantly, it is a cost-saving device, so to speak.
(Atty. Ian Alfredo T. Magno is an asssociate at Atty. Francis U. Ku & Associates, and is deputy legal officer at Philhealth. E-mail:ianalfredom@gmail.com)
