The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that preventing employees from entering company premises and doing their jobs—without a valid reason—is considered illegal dismissal.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division upheld the labor arbiters’ ruling that 12 workers from Constant Packaging Corporation (Constant Packaging) were illegally dismissed.

Constant Packaging, a company that prints packaging materials, hired the workers as sorters and packers on a pakyaw basis (paid per output). The workers later raised concerns about their below-minimum wage earnings, 12-hour work day, 7-day work week, non-remittance of their SSS, PhilHealth, and PAG-IBIG contributions, and delay in the release of their salaries. The company responded by telling them to leave if they were unhappy with their working conditions.  

The workers filed a complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Soon after, the company security guard prevented them from entering the company premises.

The workers claimed they were illegally dismissed. However, the company argued it did not dismiss them, explaining they could still work anytime on a pakyaw arrangement. It also noted that if they were truly prevented from entering the premises, they should have consulted management rather than assuming they were dismissed.

The labor arbiter originally ruled in favor of the workers, finding they were illegally dismissed. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) later reversed this decision, stating that being prevented from entering the workplace does not constitute dismissal. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the NLRC’s ruling.

The SC disagreed.  It clarified that an employee who is able and willing to work is considered illegally dismissed if they are prevented from entering the workplace without a valid or lawful reason.

In this case, the company’s security guard blocked the workers from entering the company premises without any valid reason. This action amounts to dismissal. Because the workers were suddenly dismissed without following the required procedures, their dismissal was unlawful.

The SC ordered Constant Packaging to pay the workers separation pay, back wages, service incentive leave, and holiday pay. However, since the workers were hired on a pakyaw basis, they are not entitled to 13th month pay. (Courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson) 

This press release is prepared for members of the media and the general public by the SC Office of the Spokesperson as a simplified summary of the SC’s Decision. For the SC’s complete discussion of the case, please read the full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 259988 (Amor, et al. v. Constant Packaging Corporation), May 19, 2025.