Photo from Unsplash | Maksim Zhashkevych
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
An employee is considered constructively dismissed if he or she was sexually harassed by her superior and her employer failed to act on his or her complaint with prompt and sensitivity.
In the case LBC Express-Vis, Inc. vs. Monica C. Palco, G.R. No. 217101, February 12, 2020, the Supreme Court discussed how an employer’s insensibility on the sexual harassment of its employee by a co-employee may be considered as constructive dismissal.
In the said case, Monica C. Palco (Palco) was a customer associate of LBC Express, Inc. (LBC) Gaisano Danao Branch. She initially noticed that the Branch’s Team Leader and Officer-in-Charge, Arturo A. Batucan (Batucan) would often flirt with her, which made her uncomfortable. Later, Batucan started sexually harassing her through various acts, such as whenever he approached her while working, he found ways to hold her hand or put his hand on her lap, if not, on her shoulder. The time came when he started to kiss her on the cheek in a joking manner. On certain occasions, he pulled the strap of her bra, which made her feel really uncomfortable. There was also a time when he joked about making a baby with her.
The final straw happened one morning, when Batucan sneaked in on Palco, then held her on her hips and attempted to kiss her lips. Batucan then tried a second time and was able to kiss Palco’s lips before she could react. She told him not to repeat what he had done and threatened to tell his wife about it. Palco felt angry and afraid.
The next day, despite being repulsed by Batucan, Palco still forced herself to go to work. However, on May 4, 2010, she did not come in for work because she was sick, and was still bothered by the incident.
On May 5, 2010, she reported the incident to the LBC Head Office in Lapu Lapu City. Acting on her complaint, management advised her to request for a transfer to another team while they investigated the matter.
On May 8, 2010, Palco returned to the LBC Head Office with her mother and submitted her formal complaint against Batucan. Later, they proceeded to the police station to report the incident.
On May 14, 2010, sensing that management did not immediately act on her complaint Palco resigned. She asserted that she was forced to quit since she no longer felt safe at work.
It was only on June 15, 2010 that Batucan was served a Notice to Explain. On July 20, 2010, LBC held the administrative hearing for the incident. On the same day, Palco filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal against LBC.
LBC mainly argued that it should not be held liable for constructive dismissal. It insisted that it did not commit any act of discrimination, insensibility, or disdain towards Palco. Neither did it establish a harsh, hostile or unfavorable work environment for her since it had no participation in the sexual harassment committed by Batucan. LBC emphasized that it was not the company, but Batucan, that created the hostile work environment. It argued that Batucan is a mere co-employee, not part of its management who may dismiss other employees.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court ruled that LBC was liable for constructive dismissal.
Even if LBC had no participation in the sexual harassment, it had been informed of the incident. Despite this, it failed to take immediate action on Palco’s complaint. Its lack of prompt action reinforced the hostile work environment created by Batucan.
The delay in acting on Palco’s case showed LBC’s insensibility, indifference, and disregard for its employees’ security and welfare.
Insensibility to respondent’s sexual harassment case is a ground for constructive dismissal. In this instance, it cannot be denied that Palco was compelled to leave her employment because of the hostile and offensive work environment created and reinforced by Batucan and LBC. She was thus clearly constructively dismissed.
In the case LBC Express-Vis, Inc. vs. Monica C. Palco, G.R. No. 217101, February 12, 2020, the Supreme Court discussed how an employer’s insensibility on the sexual harassment of its employee by a co-employee may be considered as constructive dismissal.
In the said case, Monica C. Palco (Palco) was a customer associate of LBC Express, Inc. (LBC) Gaisano Danao Branch. She initially noticed that the Branch’s Team Leader and Officer-in-Charge, Arturo A. Batucan (Batucan) would often flirt with her, which made her uncomfortable. Later, Batucan started sexually harassing her through various acts, such as whenever he approached her while working, he found ways to hold her hand or put his hand on her lap, if not, on her shoulder. The time came when he started to kiss her on the cheek in a joking manner. On certain occasions, he pulled the strap of her bra, which made her feel really uncomfortable. There was also a time when he joked about making a baby with her.
The final straw happened one morning, when Batucan sneaked in on Palco, then held her on her hips and attempted to kiss her lips. Batucan then tried a second time and was able to kiss Palco’s lips before she could react. She told him not to repeat what he had done and threatened to tell his wife about it. Palco felt angry and afraid.
The next day, despite being repulsed by Batucan, Palco still forced herself to go to work. However, on May 4, 2010, she did not come in for work because she was sick, and was still bothered by the incident.
On May 5, 2010, she reported the incident to the LBC Head Office in Lapu Lapu City. Acting on her complaint, management advised her to request for a transfer to another team while they investigated the matter.
On May 8, 2010, Palco returned to the LBC Head Office with her mother and submitted her formal complaint against Batucan. Later, they proceeded to the police station to report the incident.
On May 14, 2010, sensing that management did not immediately act on her complaint Palco resigned. She asserted that she was forced to quit since she no longer felt safe at work.
It was only on June 15, 2010 that Batucan was served a Notice to Explain. On July 20, 2010, LBC held the administrative hearing for the incident. On the same day, Palco filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal against LBC.
LBC mainly argued that it should not be held liable for constructive dismissal. It insisted that it did not commit any act of discrimination, insensibility, or disdain towards Palco. Neither did it establish a harsh, hostile or unfavorable work environment for her since it had no participation in the sexual harassment committed by Batucan. LBC emphasized that it was not the company, but Batucan, that created the hostile work environment. It argued that Batucan is a mere co-employee, not part of its management who may dismiss other employees.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court ruled that LBC was liable for constructive dismissal.
Even if LBC had no participation in the sexual harassment, it had been informed of the incident. Despite this, it failed to take immediate action on Palco’s complaint. Its lack of prompt action reinforced the hostile work environment created by Batucan.
The delay in acting on Palco’s case showed LBC’s insensibility, indifference, and disregard for its employees’ security and welfare.
Insensibility to respondent’s sexual harassment case is a ground for constructive dismissal. In this instance, it cannot be denied that Palco was compelled to leave her employment because of the hostile and offensive work environment created and reinforced by Batucan and LBC. She was thus clearly constructively dismissed.
RELATED ARTICLES
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.