Bacani vs. Fiber Textile Manufacturing Corp.

A flexible work arrangement under DOLE Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009 is invalid and amounts to constructive dismissal when the employer fails to secure the voluntary consent of the majority of affected employees, notify the DOLE Regional Office prior to implementation, and prove actual or reasonably imminent economic difficulties or national emergencies undertaken in good faith. Noncompliance with the DOLE notice requirement alone, where all other requisites are satisfied, does not invalidate the arrangement but renders the employer liable for ₱100,000 in nominal damages per affected employee.

FMC is a corporation duly organized under Philippine laws, engaged in textile manufacturing, with its factory located in Meycauayan, Bulacan and its administrative office and warehouse formerly located in Valenzuela City. Sherly Que is the president, while Judy Que and Jason Que serve as human resource manager and plant manager, respectively. Petitioners were employed by FMC as production workers—folding operator, chemical mixer, color man, receiver, and dyeing operator—with a daily salary of ₱380.00 and initially enjoyed a six-day workweek. DOLE Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009 governs the adoption of flexible work arrangements as coping mechanisms during economic difficulties and national emergencies, prescribing requisites including prior consultation with and consent of affected employees, temporary implementation, prior notice to the DOLE Regional Office, and proof of economic difficulties or national emergencies.

Petitioners were employed by FMC on June 16, 2017 as folding operators, chemical mixer, color man, receiver, and dyeing operator, with a daily salary of ₱380.00 and an initial six-day workweek. Their workweek was subsequently reduced to two to three days per week, prompting them to seek assistance from DOLE-Malolos. On July 20, 2018, FMC and its officers failed to appear during the Single-Entry Approach (SEnA) proceedings. On July 27, 2018, petitioners went to FMC's premises, where Judy Que allegedly told Bacani, Delara, Arguel, and Rivero to look for another job, while telling the others to resign ("Huwag na babalik. Layas layas"). During a mediation conference, a certain Sammy Chua allegedly admitted advising petitioners to look for another job. Petitioners thereafter filed a complaint for constructive illegal dismissal, reduction of workweek, and nonremittance of SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG contributions before the DOLE Regional Arbitration Branch III.

FMC countered that on July 9, 2018, its management and employees were unexpectedly prevented from entering its compound in Valenzuela City, which became the subject of a pending ejectment case. FMC was prevented from removing its properties, including inventory in the warehouse and important office documents such as payrolls. Since raw materials were stored in the Valenzuela warehouse and access was denied, production at the Bulacan factory was gravely affected. FMC made unscheduled purchases of fabrics from suppliers, but delivery was delayed. Due to the lack of materials, the number of production workers exceeded available work in the factory. FMC called a meeting to inform production supervisors and personnel of the predicament and the need to implement a work rotation schedule. On July 16, 2018, FMC issued Company Memo-81, informing all personnel of the immediate implementation of the work rotation schedule, allegedly posted in a conspicuous place in the factory. The schedules prepared by the supervisor allotted each worker at least two working days per week. FMC claimed that by January 2019, after replacement raw materials arrived, it reinstated the original work schedule.

Regarding individual circumstances, Arguel allegedly filed for leave from July 23 to August 11, 2018, to care for his child while his wife was in the province; his leave was approved, but he no longer reported for work thereafter. Delara was suspended for 12 days, from July 25 to August 7, 2018, for sleeping during work hours; he received the Violations Memo on July 24, 2018, but also did not return after serving his suspension. During the first week of August 2018, Bacani, Cabrera, Sua, and Sebolino did not report for work on their scheduled work days. FMC denied that Chua admitted telling petitioners to look for another job or that Judy told them to resign, and maintained that no illegal dismissal occurred, actual or constructive. FMC's management was surprised to receive the summons with the complaint for illegal dismissal in the second week of August 2018. In their reply, petitioners claimed that Company Memo-81 should not be given consideration because FMC did not report the rotation plan to the DOLE and its claim of lack of raw materials was not supported by substantial evidence.

The Labor Arbiter found Bacani et al. constructively dismissed, citing FMC's failure to notify the DOLE of the adoption of the flexible work arrangement and the absence of substantial evidence proving the lack of raw materials. The NLRC reversed, holding that the absence of notice to the DOLE was a mere procedural infirmity that did not affect the valid exercise of management prerogative, and lent credence to FMC's claim of lack of raw materials. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC, finding no grave abuse of discretion, taking judicial reference of pleadings filed in the ejectment and grave coercion cases to support FMC's allegation of lack of raw materials, and holding that the reduced workdays fell within FMC's management prerogative and were implemented in good faith with the consent of production supervisors and personnel.

• Constructive Dismissal: Petitioners argued that the labor arbiter correctly declared they were constructively dismissed, especially considering that FMC admitted hiring other employees in their place, belying its claim that the reduction of working days was undertaken to forestall business losses.
• Invalidity of Company Memo-81: Petitioners claimed that Company Memo-81 should not be given consideration because FMC did not report the rotation plan to the DOLE and its claim that there was a lack of raw materials was not supported by substantial evidence.
• DOLE Notice Requirement: Petitioners asseverated that FMC's failure to notify the DOLE amounted to their constructive dismissal, especially since the offered justification for the reduction was unproven by substantial evidence.

• No Novel Question: FMC countered that the Petition did not raise any genuinely novel question or any special and important reasons to warrant the Court's exercise of its power of review.
• Management Prerogative: FMC argued that the NLRC correctly found and recognized the economic difficulties FMC experienced which necessitated the flexible work arrangement, constituting a direct exercise of its management prerogative.
• Prior Consultation and Consent: FMC maintained that the reduction of working days or rotation of work schedule was attended with notice and prior consultation with the production supervisors and personnel, and that prior to the issuance of Company Memo-81, a meeting was arranged where a unanimous consensus was reached regarding the implementation of the work rotation schedule.
• Procedural Infirmity: FMC submitted that the failure to notify the DOLE was a mere procedural infirmity which did not invalidate its reduction of the personnel's workdays.

• NLRC Jurisdiction: Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it ruled on the issue of constructive dismissal albeit it was allegedly raised for the first time on appeal.
• Constructive Dismissal: Whether petitioners were constructively dismissed as a result of FMC's unilateral implementation of reduced workdays sans notice to the DOLE as required under DOLE Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009.
• Monetary Awards: Whether petitioners are entitled to monetary awards and attorney's fees.

• NLRC Jurisdiction: No. The NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion, as the issue of constructive dismissal arising from illegal reduction of workdays was properly before it, petitioners having raised the invalidity of Company Memo-81 for lack of DOLE notice in their reply before the labor arbiter and having identified their complaint as one for "constructive dismissal" and "reduction of workweek."
• Constructive Dismissal: Yes. Petitioners were constructively dismissed because FMC failed to comply with the first, third, and fourth requisites for valid implementation of flexible work arrangements under DOLE Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009—namely, securing the voluntary consent of the majority of affected employees, notifying the DOLE Regional Office prior to implementation, and proving actual or reasonably imminent economic difficulties or national emergencies undertaken in good faith.
• Monetary Awards: Yes. Petitioners are entitled to full backwages inclusive of allowances and other benefits, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to strained relations, proportionate 13th month pay, SILP, and attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award, with 6% legal interest per annum from finality until fully paid.

• NLRC Jurisdiction: The records clearly bore petitioners' allegations, as set forth in their reply before the labor arbiter, which directly attacked the validity of FMC's implementation of reduced workdays under Company Memo-81 for lack of notice to the DOLE. Petitioners even identified their complaint as one for "constructive dismissal" and "reduction of workweek." The NLRC was fully empowered to treat the allegations of unlawful reduction of workdays as an additional ground for constructive dismissal, the latter being a necessary consequence of the former once established. In any case, settled is the rule that in labor cases, strict adherence to technical rules of procedure is not required, and labor officials should use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts speedily and objectively without regard to technicalities, in the interest of due process.

• Constructive Dismissal: The Court first delineated between flexible work arrangements entered into voluntarily without reduction of pay or benefits (such as WFH and hybrid set-ups arising from the COVID-19 pandemic) and those that result in a reduction of employee pay or benefits, which are regulated by DOLE Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009. The latter kind, by their nature, contravene the labor standards on work hours prescribed by the Labor Code and are presumed illegal until proven otherwise; they are upheld as valid only because of exceptional circumstances—economic difficulties or national emergencies—that make them a more humane alternative to retrenchment or closure. The Court then established a four-part test for valid implementation: (1) the adoption is expressly and voluntarily supported by a majority of the workers affected, with prior consultation; (2) the implementation is temporary, and for reduction of workdays specifically, should not exceed six months; (3) the DOLE Regional Office is notified before implementation; and (4) the employer is suffering from actual or reasonably imminent economic difficulties or national emergencies and acted in good faith. As to the effect of noncompliance with the notice requirement, the Court applied the doctrine in Agabon vs. NLRC by analogy: just as failure to comply with statutory due process in dismissals for authorized causes does not invalidate the dismissal but subjects the employer to nominal damages, failure to notify the DOLE does not by itself invalidate an otherwise valid flexible work arrangement but renders the employer liable for nominal damages of ₱100,000 per employee, adjusted from the ₱50,000 figure in Jaka Food Processing Corporation vs. Pacot to account for the depreciation of the peso over 20 years. However, where noncompliance with the notice requirement is attended by noncompliance with other requisites, the arrangement is declared invalid and the affected employees receive reliefs corresponding to constructive or illegal dismissal. Applying these standards, FMC complied only with the second requisite (temporary implementation), as it admittedly reinstated the original work schedule by January 2019. It failed the first requisite because it presented no proof—only bare allegations—that the affected workers were consulted or that a majority consented; informing workers is not the same as securing their consent. It failed the third requisite because it adduced no evidence of having sent notice to the DOLE Regional Office. It failed the fourth requisite because the pleadings from the ejectment and grave coercion cases it submitted were mere allegations, not proofs, of economic difficulties, and the lack of raw materials did not necessarily mean FMC was suffering economic difficulties of such gravity as to render it incapable of sustaining normal operations, especially since it was able to resolve the situation through negotiation and alternative supply orders. The unlawful reduction of workdays and rotation of workers resulted in a diminution of pay, rendering continued employment unreasonable or unlikely—constituting constructive dismissal. FMC's claim of abandonment was rejected, as the filing of the complaint itself negated any intent to abandon employment.

• Monetary Awards: In cases of constructive dismissal, the employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and full backwages inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time compensation was withheld until actual reinstatement. Where reinstatement is no longer viable due to strained relations, separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service is awarded as an alternative, in addition to backwages. The labor arbiter found strained relations between the parties, which the Court adopted. The award of proportionate 13th month pay and SILP was reinstated, as was the award of attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award pursuant to Article 111 of the Labor Code and Article 2208 of the Civil Code. All monetary awards earn 6% legal interest per annum from the finality of the Decision until fully paid.

• Requisites for Valid Flexible Work Arrangements under DOLE Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009 — A company seeking to adopt a flexible work arrangement must satisfy four requisites: (1) the adoption of a different work schedule or scheme is expressly and voluntarily supported by a majority of the workers affected, i.e., there should have been a consultation with the employees before the arrangement is adopted and implemented; (2) the implementation of a non-traditional work arrangement should be temporary, and for reduction of workdays specifically, should not exceed six months; (3) the DOLE Regional Office should be notified before any flexible work arrangement may be implemented; and (4) the employer is suffering from actual or reasonably imminent economic difficulties or national emergencies and its adoption of the flexible work arrangement was done in good faith to cope with such circumstances. The Court applied this test and found FMC compliant only with the second requisite, rendering its implementation of rotation of workers and reduction of workdays unlawful.

• Effect of Noncompliance with the DOLE Notice Requirement — Where a flexible work arrangement under DOLE Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009 is otherwise validly implemented but the employer failed to give prior notice to the DOLE, the arrangement remains valid but the employer is liable for nominal damages of ₱100,000 per affected employee. This amount was derived by adjusting the ₱50,000 nominal damages established in Jaka Food Processing Corporation vs. Pacot (2005) for authorized-cause dismissals, to account for the 116.22% depreciation in the purchasing power of the peso from 2005 to 2025. However, where noncompliance with the notice requirement is attended also by noncompliance with other requisites, the flexible work arrangement is declared invalid and the affected employees receive reliefs corresponding to constructive or illegal dismissal. The Court applied the Agabon vs. NLRC doctrine by analogy, holding that invalidating an otherwise valid management action solely for a procedural infirmity would encourage frivolous suits and create absurd situations.

• Presumption of Illegality of Flexible Work Arrangements Resulting in Diminution of Pay — Flexible work arrangements that result in the diminution of the benefits and pay of workers do not enjoy any presumption of validity; by their nature, they contravene the labor standards on work hours prescribed by the Labor Code and are presumed illegal until proven otherwise. They are upheld as valid only because of exceptional circumstances—economic difficulties or national emergencies—that make them a more humane alternative to retrenchment or closure. The Court relied on this presumption to justify the mandatory construction of the DOLE notice requirement and the heightened scrutiny applied to such arrangements.

• Constructive Dismissal — Constructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. The Court found that petitioners suffered a decrease in pay due to the unlawful adoption of rotation of workers and reduction of workdays, rendering their continued employment unreasonable or unlikely.

• Abandonment Negated by Filing of Complaint — An employee who takes steps to protest his or her dismissal cannot logically be said to have abandoned work; the filing of a complaint is proof enough of the desire to return to work, thus negating any suggestion of abandonment. The Court applied this doctrine to reject FMC's claim that petitioners abandoned their posts.

• "Thus, under DOLE Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009, a company seeking to adopt a flexible work arrangement must meet the following requisites: first, the adoption of a different work schedule or scheme is expressly and voluntarily supported by a majority of the workers affected, i.e., there should have been a consultation with the employees before a part time work arrangement is adopted and implemented; second, the implementation of a non-traditional work arrangement should be temporary. For reduction of workdays, specifically, the same should not exceed six months; third, the DOLE Regional Office should be notified before any flexible work arrangements may be implemented; and finally, the employer is suffering from actual or reasonably imminent economic difficulties or national emergencies and its adoption of flexible work arrangement was done in good faith to cope with such circumstances." — This passage establishes the four-part test for valid flexible work arrangements, the central doctrinal contribution of this decision and a high-priority formulation for bar review.

• "In cases where flexible work arrangements under DOLE Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009 and similar issuances were validly implemented, but the employer failed to give prior notice to the DOLE, the adoption and implementation of the flexible work arrangements shall remain valid but the employer shall be liable for nominal damages in the amount of PHP 100,000.00 for each employee." — This passage articulates the novel rule on the consequence of noncompliance with the DOLE notice requirement, distinguishing between procedural infirmity alone (nominal damages) and substantive failure (invalidation and constructive dismissal), and sets the adjusted amount of nominal damages.

• "Flexible work arrangements which result in the diminution of the benefits and pay of workers do not enjoy any presumption of validity in their favor. By their nature, these arrangements contravene the standards on work hours prescribed by law." — This passage states the presumption of illegality that attaches to flexible work arrangements reducing employee pay, grounding the Court's heightened scrutiny and mandatory construction of the notice requirement in the State's constitutional policy to protect labor.

• "Where, however, noncompliance with the notice requirement under DOLE Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009 is attended also by noncompliance with the other requisites for the valid adoption of flexible work arrangement, the adoption and implementation of such flexible work arrangement shall be declared invalid and the affected employees shall receive the proper reliefs corresponding to constructive or illegal dismissal." — This passage establishes the disjunctive rule: procedural lapse alone yields nominal damages, but procedural lapse coupled with substantive failure yields invalidation and full constructive-dismissal remedies.

• Agabon vs. NLRC, 485 Phil. 248 (2004) — Controlling precedent applied by analogy. The Court adopted the Agabon doctrine that noncompliance with statutory due process in dismissals for valid causes does not invalidate the dismissal but subjects the employer to nominal damages, extending this principle to the DOLE notice requirement for flexible work arrangements. The Agabon reasoning—that invalidating an otherwise valid management action for procedural infirmity would encourage frivolous suits and undermine employer rights—was invoked to justify preserving the validity of flexible work arrangements despite failure to notify the DOLE.

• Jaka Food Processing Corporation vs. Pacot, 494 Phil. 114 (2005) — Followed and adjusted. The Court adopted the Jaka distinction between just-cause and authorized-cause dismissals for purposes of calibrating nominal damages, applying the higher authorized-cause figure (₱50,000) to flexible work arrangements because, like authorized-cause dismissals, they are initiated by the employer's exercise of management prerogative and no fault is imputed to the employee. The amount was adjusted to ₱100,000 to account for the 116.22% depreciation in the purchasing power of the peso from 2005 to 2025.

• Linton Commercial Co, Inc. vs. Hellera, 561 Phil. 536 (2007) — Followed. The Court cited Linton for the proposition that an employer's failure to prove, based on financial reports, that it was truly suffering from financial losses justifying reduced workdays renders the reduction illegal and constitutes constructive dismissal. The Court quoted Linton's admonition that "a year of financial losses would not warrant the immolation of the welfare of the employees."

• Intec Cebu, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 788 Phil. 31 (2016) — Followed. Cited for the proposition that an employer's failure to prove financial losses justifying reduction of work hours constitutes illegal reduction and constructive dismissal. The Court also noted that Intec was decided before the issuance of DOLE Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009, and that under the Advisory, flexible work arrangements may be adopted "in times of economic difficulties and national emergencies," which does not necessarily mean the business is already suffering financial losses.

• Alejandro vs. Philippine Pizza, Inc., G.R. No. 226371, August 8, 2022 — Distinguished. The Court quoted the summary of three conditions for adopting flexible work arrangements from the dissent in Alejandro, finding that the enumeration correctly encapsulated the tenor of DOLE Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009, though Alejandro itself was inapplicable because it involved part-time workers who necessarily work less than eight hours a day. The Court added a fourth condition (proof of economic difficulties or national emergencies) to the three drawn from Alejandro.

• Borromeo vs. Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc., 952 Phil. 607 (2024) — Followed. Cited for the rule that in cases of dismissal without just or authorized cause and where due process was not observed, the employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and full backwages inclusive of allowances and other benefits from the time of illegal dismissal up to actual reinstatement.

• Barlolome vs. Toyota Quezon Avenue, Inc., 952 Phil. 539 (2024) — Followed. Cited for the rule that where reinstatement is no longer viable due to strained relations, separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service is awarded as an alternative, in addition to backwages.

• Diokno vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, 91 Phil. 608 (1952) — Followed. Cited for the settled interpretation that the word "shall" is imperative, obligatory, or mandatory, denoting a duty which may be enforced, particularly when public policy favors this meaning or when public interest is involved.

• DOLE Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009, Part I (Purpose) — Provides that flexible work arrangements are "anchored on voluntary basis and conditions mutually acceptable to both the employer and the employees" and serve as "coping mechanisms and remedial measures in times of economic difficulties and national emergencies." The Court relied on this provision to establish the first and fourth requisites for valid implementation—employee consent and proof of economic difficulties—and to distinguish flexible work arrangements that reduce pay (covered) from those that do not (not covered).

• DOLE Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009, Part II (Concept) — Provides that "the effectivity and implementation of any of the flexible work arrangements provided herein shall be temporary in nature." The Court used this provision to establish the second requisite—temporary implementation—and noted that FMC complied with this requisite by reinstating the original work schedule by January 2019.

• DOLE Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009, Part III (Flexible Work Arrangements) — Enumerates the types of flexible work arrangements, including "Reduction of Workdays" (normal workdays per week are reduced but should not last for more than six months) and "Rotation of Workers" (employees are rotated or alternately provided work within the workweek). The Court found that FMC adopted both types of arrangements, as defined under this provision.

• DOLE Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009, Part V (Notice Requirement) — Provides that "[p]rior to its implementation, the employer shall notify the Department through the Regional Office which has jurisdiction over the workplace, of the adoption of any of the above flexible work arrangements" and that "[t]he Regional Office shall conduct an ocular visit to validate whether the adoption of the flexible work arrangements is in accordance with this issuance." The Court construed the word "shall" as mandatory, given the State's constitutional policy to protect labor, and held that the notice requirement is a preventive and regulatory measure, not merely informational. The Court found that FMC failed to comply with this requirement.

• Labor Code, Article 83 (Normal Hours of Work) — Provides that the normal hours of work of any employee shall not exceed eight hours a day. The Court cited this provision to establish the labor standard that flexible work arrangements reducing workdays contravene, justifying the presumption of illegality attaching to such arrangements.

• Labor Code, Article 294 [279] (Security of Tenure) — Provides that an employee unjustly dismissed is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to full backwards inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent. The Court applied this provision to award backwages and reinstatement (substituted by separation pay due to strained relations) to petitioners found constructively dismissed.

• Labor Code, Article 292 277 (Miscellaneous Provisions) — Provides the notice requirement for termination of employees due to just and authorized causes. The Court compared this provision to the DOLE notice requirement and found them analogous insofar as both involve similar grounds, affect innocent employees, and require prior notice to the DOLE as part of due process.

• Labor Code, Article 111 and Civil Code, Article 2208 — Provide the statutory basis for the award of attorney's fees. The Court affirmed the award of attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award pursuant to these provisions.

• Constitution, Article XIII, Section 3 — Enshrines the State's policy to afford full protection to labor. The Court invoked this constitutional provision to justify the mandatory construction of the DOLE notice requirement and the presumption of illegality attaching to flexible work arrangements that reduce employee pay.

Hernando, Inting, Zalameda, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, Kho, Jr., Singh, and Villanueva, JJ., concurred. Chief Justice Gesmundo was on official leave (Acting Chief Justice Leonen served per special order).

Justice Leonen (SAJ) wrote a separate concurring opinion agreeing that petitioners were constructively dismissed due to the unilateral imposition of reduced workdays and worker rotation without consent, and that failure to notify the DOLE does not by itself invalidate the arrangement but constitutes a procedural lapse warranting nominal damages. Justice Leonen proposed ₱60,000 as nominal damages (adjusted from the ₱30,000 in Agabon vs. NLRC for the 126.66% peso depreciation from 2004 to 2025), rather than the ponencia's ₱100,000, and proposed reinstatement rather than separation pay, though he concurred in the result.

• Justice Caguioa — Wrote a concurring and dissenting opinion. He concurred with the ponencia on two key points: (a) that the DOLE notice requirement is merely procedural and noncompliance does not invalidate the flexible work arrangement but makes the employer liable for nominal damages, and (b) that financial loss is not necessary to justify a flexible work arrangement, as "economic difficulties or national emergencies" do not equate to financial loss. He agreed that FMC constructively dismissed petitioners because FMC failed to prove that affected employees voluntarily consented to the arrangement, rendering the unilateral diminution of benefits invalid. However, he registered reservations on two findings: First, he disagreed that FMC failed to prove lack of access to raw materials, arguing that technical rules of evidence are not strictly binding in labor cases and that verified pleadings from the ejectment and grave coercion cases should be given credence as substantial evidence, as both the NLRC and CA found. He noted that FMC's unscheduled orders for new raw materials corroborated its claim, and that a reasonably imminent economic difficulty suffices under DOLE Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009. Second, he took exception to the ponencia's finding that FMC barred petitioners from work on July 27, 2018, noting that this was unsupported by evidence and that no such finding was made by the labor tribunals or the CA; the NLRC had dismissed the allegation as bare and unsubstantiated. He maintained that petitioners were already constructively dismissed when FMC unilaterally implemented the flexible work arrangements on July 16, 2018, rendering it unnecessary to rule on the July 27 incident.