3 days absent na empleyado, hindi na pinabalik sa trabaho

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta - @Magtanong Kay Attorney | December 19, 2022

Dear Chief Acosta,

Ang aking anak ay nagtatrabaho sa pabrika. Nang siya ay minsang nagkasakit, siya ay lumiban sa trabaho ng tatlong araw. Pinadalhan siya ng liham upang magpaliwanag sa kanyang pagliban. Nang siya ay gumaling, siya ay bumalik sa kanyang amo upang i-presenta ang kanyang medical certificate na nagpapatunay sa dahilan ng kanyang pagliban. Ito ay hindi tinanggap ng kanyang amo at siya ay sinabihan na kumuha ng “fit-to-work” certificate, kaya bumalik sa kanyang doktor ang aking anak. Nagbigay naman ito ng sulat-kamay na certificate. Ito ay dinala ng aking anak pabalik sa kanyang amo ngunit siya ay hindi pa rin pinayagan makabalik sa trabaho. Tama ba ito? - Dina

Dear Dina,

Ang sagot sa iyong katanungan ay sinagot ng Korte Suprema sa kasong Pentagon Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, NLRC, and Perfecto Balogo (G.R. No. 174141, June 26, 2009, Ponente: Kagalang-galang na dating Mahistrado Arturo D. Brion), kung saan sinabi ng Korte Suprema na ang paulit-ulit na pagtanggi ng employer na ibalik sa trabaho ang empleyado nang walang dahilan kahit na ito ay sumusunod sa patakaran ng employer ay maaaring i-konsiderang constructive dismissal. Ayon sa Korte Suprema:

“That Balogo was dismissed in contravention of the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the Labor Code on the security of tenure guaranteed to him as an employee is clear for us. A dismissal need not be expressed orally or in writing, for it can also be implied. When the employer continuously refuses to accept the employee back despite his having a valid reason for his absence from work, illegal dismissal results because the employee is thus prevented from returning to work under the façade of a violation of a company directive.

A dismissal effected through the fig leaf of an alleged violation of a company directive is no less than an actual illegal dismissal that jurisprudence has labeled as a constructive dismissal. Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc. v. Catinoy describes this type of company action when it ruled that "[c]onstructive dismissal does not always involve forthright dismissal or diminution in rank, compensation, benefit and privileges - there may be constructive dismissal if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment." (Emphasis Ours)

Tulad sa kaso ng iyong anak, ang paulit-ulit na pagtanggi ng kanyang amo na siya ay ibalik sa trabaho sa kabila ng kanyang pagpresenta ng balidong medical certificate at “fit-to-work” ay maaaring i-konsiderang isang uri ng constructive dismissal na labag sa karapatan sa security of tenure ng empleyado.

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay.

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.

Pag-amin ng akusado sa capital offense

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta - @Magtanong Kay Attorney | December 2, 2022

Dear Chief Acosta,

Ang aking anak ay sinampahan ng kasong murder. Dahil sa kawalan ng pag-asa at pagod, ang aking anak ay nag-plead ng guilty para diumano matapos na ang kanyang kaso. Matapos nito, inutusan ng korte ang piskal na magpresenta ng kanilang ebidensya upang matulungan ang korte na magbigay ng kaukulang parusa. Subalit walang naipresinta ang piskal na anumang ebidensya. Sa kabila nito, sinentensyahan ang aking anak ng reclusion perpetua sa salang murder. Tama ba ito? - Flora

Dear Flora,

Ang sagot sa iyong katanungan ay sinagot ng Korte Suprema sa kasong People of the Philippines v. Brendo P. Pagal (G.R. No. 241257, September 29, 2020, Ponente: Honorable Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo), kung saan sinabi ng Korte Suprema, na kahit may pag-amin mula sa akusado sa capital offense, kinakailangan pa rin ng prosekusyon na patunayan ang pagkakasala nito. Ayon sa Korte Suprema:

“For the guidance of the bench and the bar, this Court adopts the following guidelines concerning pleas of guilty to capital offenses:

1. AT THE TRIAL STAGE. When the accused makes a plea of guilty to a capital offense, the trial court must strictly abide by the provisions of Sec. 3, Rule 116 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. In particular, it must afford the prosecution an opportunity to present evidence as to the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability. Failure to comply with these mandates constitute grave abuse of discretion.

a. In case the plea of guilty to a capital offense is supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt, the trial court shall enter a judgment of conviction.

b. In case the prosecution presents evidence but fails to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the trial court shall enter a judgment of acquittal in favor of the accused.

c. In case the prosecution fails to present any evidence despite the opportunity to do so, the trial court shall enter a judgment of acquittal in favor of the accused.

In the above instance, the trial court shall require the prosecution to explain in writing within ten (10) days from receipt of its failure to present evidence. Any instance of collusion between the prosecution and the accused shall be dealt with to the full extent of the law.

2. AT THE APPEAL STAGE:

a. When the accused is convicted of a capital offense on the basis of his plea of guilty, whether improvident or not, and proof beyond reasonable doubt was established, the judgment of conviction shall be sustained.

b. When the accused is convicted of a capital offense solely on the basis of his plea of guilty, whether improvident or not, without proof beyond reasonable doubt because the prosecution was not given an opportunity to present its evidence, or was given the opportunity to present evidence but the improvident plea of guilt resulted to an undue prejudice to either the prosecution or the accused, the judgment of conviction shall be set aside and the case remanded for re-arraignment and for reception of evidence pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 116 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

c. When the accused is convicted of a capital offense solely on the basis of a plea of guilty, whether improvident or not, without proof beyond reasonable doubt because the prosecution failed to prove the accused’s guilt despite opportunity to do so, the judgment of conviction shall be set aside and the accused acquitted.” (Emphasis Ours)

Tulad sa kaso ng iyong anak, ang kanyang pag-amin sa kasong murder ay hindi nangangahulugang awtomatiko siyang mahahatulan. Dapat mapatunayan ng prosekusyon ang kanyang sala. Kung ang kanyang partisipasyon ay hindi malinaw na nailatag ng prosekusyon ay dapat i-acquit siya ng korte.

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay.

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.

P1-K multa at pagkakakulong sa sasabit sa jeep

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta - @Magtanong Kay Attorney | November 22, 2022

Dear Chief Acosta,

Mahirap sumakay sa pampublikong sasakyan ngayong pandemya, kaya sumasabit ako sa likod ng jeep upang makauwi agad sa bahay. May pagkakataong nagalit sa akin ang drayber at pinababa ako ng jeep. Ipinagbabawal ba ng batas ang pagsabit sa likuran ng jeep? - Jomar

Dear Jomar,

Ang sagot sa iyong katanungan ay matatagpuan sa Section 51 ng Republic Act No. 4136 o mas kilala sa tawag na “Land Transportation Code” kung sana nakasaad na:

“Section 51. Hitching to a vehicle. – No person shall hang on to, ride on, the outside or rear end of any vehicle, and no person on a bicycle, roller skate or other similar device, shall hold fast to or hitch on to any moving vehicle, and no driver shall knowingly permit any person to hang on to or ride, the outside or rear end of his vehicle or allow any person on a bicycle, roller skate or other similar device to hold fast or hitch to his vehicle.” (Binigyang-diin)

Samakatwid, ang iyong pagsabit sa likod ng jeep ay labag sa batas at hindi wastong katwiran na mahirap sumakay sa panahon ng pandemya para gawin ito. Dahil dito, maiging sumunod na lamang sa batas para sa inyong kaligtasan.

Ang kaparusahan sa pagsabit sa sasakyan ay matatagpuan sa Section 56 (l) at (m) ng nasabing batas, kung saan nakasaad na:

“Section 56. Penalty for violation. – The following penalties shall be imposed for violations of this Act: xxx

(l) For violation of any provision of this Act or regulations promulgated pursuant hereto, not hereinbefore specifically punished, a fine not less than ten or more than fifty pesos shall be imposed.

(m) In the event an offender cannot pay any fine imposed pursuant to the provisions of this Act, he shall be made to undergo subsidiary imprisonment as provided in the Revised Penal Code.” (Binigyang-diin)

Kaugnay nito, ang nasabing multa ay itinaas sa ₱1,000 alinsunod sa Aytem J (8) ng Joint Administrative Order No. 2014-01 ng Land Transportation Office (LTO) at Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB).

Batay sa nabanggit, ang taong sasabit o sasakay sa likod o labas ng sasakyan, tulad ng jeep ay maaaring pagmultahin ng ₱1,000. Dagdag pa rito, maaaring magsanhi rin ito ng pagkakakulong kung hindi mababayaran ng taong lumabag ang ipinataw sa kanyang multa.

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay.

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.