• This case clarifies that an employer's act of preventing employees from entering the workplace constitutes an overt act of dismissal. A group of *pakyaw* workers were barred from their jobs after raising labor concerns. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the National Labor Relations Commission, ruling that the 12 workers who were barred entry were illegally dismissed. However, it affirmed that two other workers who resigned failed to prove they were constructively dismissed. The Court also reiterated that *pakyaw* workers are not entitled to 13th-month pay.

• The Workers: Petitioners were hired by Constant Packaging Corporation as sorters, revisers, and packers on a *pakyaw* (piece-rate) basis.
• The Grievances: The workers raised several issues with management, including below-minimum wages, long hours, and non-remittance of SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG contributions. They also reported these to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
• The Dismissals: Subsequently, 12 of the petitioners were prevented by security guards from entering the company premises on various dates. The plant manager reportedly told them, "*Kung ayaw mo ng patakaran ng kumpanya, maluwag ang pinto*" (If you don't like the company's rules, the door is open).
• The Resignations: Two other petitioners, Busel and Tordillo, resigned, citing health reasons and pressure from their supervisor.

• Labor Arbiter (LA) Ruling: The LA declared the workers were regular employees and that 12 of them were illegally dismissed. The two who resigned were found to have done so voluntarily.
• NLRC Ruling: The NLRC agreed they were regular employees but reversed the finding of illegal dismissal, stating that being barred from entry was not an overt act of termination. It ordered the workers to return to work.
• Court of Appeals (CA) Ruling: The CA affirmed the NLRC's decision, dismissing the workers' petition.

• Is the act of barring an employee from entering the workplace tantamount to dismissal?
• Did the two employees who resigned suffer from constructive dismissal?
• Are *pakyaw* workers entitled to 13th-month pay?

The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the petition, reversing the CA and NLRC.

• Illegal Dismissal Proven: The act of preventing the 12 petitioners from entering the company premises is an overt act of dismissal. The employer's claim that they did not dismiss the workers was contradicted by their failure to prove abandonment. The burden was on the employer to show a clear intent by the employees to sever the employment relationship, which they failed to do.
• No Constructive Dismissal: The Court affirmed the findings that petitioners Busel and Tordillo failed to substantiate their claim of harassment and pressure. The burden to prove constructive dismissal lies with the employee.
• No 13th Month Pay: The Court affirmed that workers paid on a *pakyaw* or task basis are expressly excluded from the coverage of the 13th-month pay law (P.D. 851).

• Fact of Dismissal: Preventing an employee from reporting for work is an overt act of dismissal. The absence of a formal termination notice does not mean no dismissal occurred.
• Abandonment: To prove abandonment, an employer must show two things: (1) the employee's failure to report for work without a valid reason, and (2) a clear, overt act showing the employee's intent to sever the employment relationship.
• Constructive Dismissal: The burden of proof for constructive dismissal lies with the employee, who must show that the employer's actions were so unbearable as to foreclose any option but to resign.
• 13th Month Pay for Pakyaw Workers: The Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.D. 851 expressly exclude workers paid on a task or *pakyaw* basis from the benefit of 13th-month pay.