Empleyadong hindi pinabalik at tatlong linggong pinaghintay sa desisyon ng management

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta - @Magtanong Kay Attorney | August 28, 2021

Dear Chief Acosta,

Isa ako sa mga matagal na nagtatrabaho sa aming pabrika na talaga namang gipit magbigay ng suweldo at benepisyo. Nagkataon, isang araw ay halos nagkasabay ang karamihan sa amin na lumiban sa trabaho at kagyat naman kaming nakapagpaliwanag matapos kaming maipatawag ng aming H.R. Sa kasamaang-palad, hindi ako pinabalik sa trabaho at sinabihang maghintay ng desisyon ng management sapagkat sa palagay nila kahit idinahilan kong nagkasakit ang aking asawa ay pasimuno ako sa pag-boycott sa aming opisina noong araw na iyon. Kagyat kong inireklamo ang aming kumpanya sapagkat tatlong linggo na nila akong sinabihang maghintay sa desisyon ng management kahit lahat ng kasamahan ko ay nakapagtrabaho na. May laban kaya ako sa aking sitwasyon? – Don

Dear Don,

Sa kasong Ala Mode Garments, Inc. vs. NLRC, et al. (G.R. No. 122165, February 17, 1997, Ponente: Honorable Associate Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr.) na dinesisyunan ng ating Kagalang-galang ng Korte Suprema, maliwanag na ipinabatid ang sumusunod:

“Petitioner claims that the private respondents were only made to wait for the decision of the management pending investigation of the alleged “sabotage” or boycott. It will be noted, however, that the private respondents were already barred from entering the company as early as May 7, 1993. They filed their complaint on May 17 of the same year. Ten days had lapsed before the said complaints were filed. Within those ten days the private respondents were not allowed to work in the company and their status remained unclear. As aptly noted by the Solicitor General:

Even assuming ex gratia argumenti that there was a company investigation being then conducted, still petitioner should not have ordered private respondents to await its decision on the matter but instead imposed on the latter preventive suspension in conformity with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule XIV of Book V of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, considering that private respondents were accused of having sabotaged petitioner’s operations which resulted in business losses, a clear example of a serious and imminent, if not actual, threat to petitioner’s property. Hence, having been placed in suspended animation, so to speak, by petitioner, private respondents had every reason to believe that they were dismissed by the former, as they actually were, thereby warranting the filing of the complaints for illegal dismissal.

The private respondents were never summoned by the management to air their side regarding the accusations of sabotage, but were only required to give explanations regarding their absences. Thus, even if, as petitioner claims, that the dismissal was due to the role played by the respondents in the alleged sabotage, the said dismissal is still invalid, as no notice was given and no hearing was conducted. To reiterate, the twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute essential elements of due process in the dismissal of employees.” (Binigyang-diin)

Samakatwid, kung walang sapat na basehan at hindi husto ang proseso sa pagpapahintay sa inyo tungkol sa management decision dahil pinaghihinalaan kayong promotor ng boycott sa inyong pinagtatrabahuhan, at higit sa lahat ay ipinagpaliwanag lamang kayo tungkol sa inyong pagliban sa nabatid na araw, maaaring may sapat kayong dahilan para maghinala sa inyong pagkatanggal at maaaring kayo ay may sapat na dahilan sa inyong pagsasampa ng kaso.

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

Maraming salamat sa inyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.