Denial of entry is illegal dismissal

Denial of entry is illegal dismissal | Daily Tribune

In one case, the employer barred its employees from entering the office premises to work. This ostensibly was due to the fact that these workers had questioned some policies of the company.

Because of this, the employees complained to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), claiming illegal dismissal. The employer claimed they were never dismissed; how could they cry foul over that?

The NLRC found it to be an illegal dismissal. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held for the employer. When brought to the Supreme Court, it decreed that “the main issue on the legality of the 12 other petitioners’ dismissal is anchored on the issue of whether they were dismissed in the first place. For 12 of the petitioners, they argued that the act of barring them from entering their workplace should have been considered as evidence of their dismissal, especially considering the circumstances surrounding their employment at that time.

“Particularly, they were under scrutiny by management because they filed a complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment, and because they did not attend the company Christmas party. xxx Respondents argue that the 12 petitioners never established the fact of dismissal to begin with. However, a perusal of the Court of Appeals decision shows that the appellate court decided on whether the act of preventing these petitioners from entering the company premises was tantamount to a dismissal, which is already a question of law.

“The Court, therefore, clings to the view that the security guard’s alleged act of preventing petitioners from reporting for work on separate occasions is not tantamount to a dismissal. Besides, the links between the acts of the guard and the supposed instructions of the Plant Manager, and the latter with the purported marching orders of private respondents, have not been shown by the requisite clear, positive, and convincing evidence.

“Petitioners aptly question the correctness of the Court of Appeals’ finding that the act of preventing them from entering the company premises does not amount to dismissal. On this point, this Court agrees with petitioners that this is tantamount to a dismissal. When an employee [sic] is able and willing to work, evidenced by their proceeding to the company premises, and the employer arbitrarily prevents them from working for no known and valid reason, then there is illegal dismissal.

“Respondents’ insistence that the absence of a written notice proves that there was no dismissal is precisely the issue here. These 12 petitioners’ services were abruptly terminated without undergoing the necessary processes and without just cause. Respondents cannot put the burden on these petitioners when it is their own lack of compliance with legal requirements that makes the dismissal illegal.

“In any case, when respondents claim that they did not dismiss the petitioners from work, what respondents are actually arguing is that they abandoned their employment. Respondents insist that petitioners’ jobs remained open and that they were free to return to work anytime, and that it was of their own volition that petitioners decided that they were dismissed.

“Respondents are quick to deny petitioners’ narration of what transpired to show that there was no fact of dismissal, but fall short of making the necessary inference from their own theory that petitioners abandoned their jobs.”

The facts and redacted portion of the quoted decision are from G.R. No. 259988 (19 May 2025).