Introduction

As Philippine workplaces normalize post-pandemic operations, many employers are requiring employees who previously worked from home (WFH) or under hybrid setups to return to office (RTO). When the RTO directive is paired with threats of termination—“comply or you’re fired”—it raises a recurring labor-law question: Can a forced RTO order amount to constructive dismissal?

In Philippine law, constructive dismissal is a form of illegal dismissal. It happens when an employee is not expressly fired, but working conditions are made so difficult, unreasonable, or prejudicial that the employee is effectively forced to resign or compelled to leave. The key issue in RTO disputes is whether the employer’s directive is a legitimate exercise of management prerogative or an unlawful/unreasonable alteration of the employment relationship that crosses into constructive dismissal, diminution of benefits, bad faith, or illegal termination.

This article lays out the concepts, legal standards, risk factors, and practical guidance—both for employers and employees—in a Philippine context.

Core legal framework (Philippine context)

1) Management prerogative (employer’s right to run the business)

Philippine labor law recognizes the employer’s right to regulate all aspects of employment, including:

Work assignments and methods
Workplace policies and rules
Transfer of employees and work schedules
Reasonable discipline and performance standards
Office-based work requirements, where business needs justify it

But management prerogative is not absolute. It must be exercised:

In good faith
For legitimate business reasons
Without abuse of discretion
Without violating law, contracts, or established company practice
Without resulting in demotion, pay cut, or undue prejudice

An RTO mandate often falls under management prerogative—unless the way it’s implemented becomes unlawful or oppressive.

2) Constructive dismissal (what it is)

Constructive dismissal generally exists when:

Continued employment becomes impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely, or
The employee is subjected to harsh, hostile, discriminatory, humiliating, or prejudicial conditions, or
There is demotion in rank, diminution of pay/benefits, or
The employee is effectively forced to resign due to the employer’s conduct

It is assessed by the totality of circumstances, including the employee’s role, location, pay structure, previous arrangements, and the reasonableness of the employer’s actions.

Important: Constructive dismissal typically arises when the employee resigns because of the intolerable condition; however, facts can vary, and employees sometimes pursue complaints even while still employed depending on the nature of the employer’s acts.

3) Just causes and due process (termination threats matter)

Under the Labor Code framework on termination, an employer may dismiss for just causes such as:

Willful disobedience/insubordination (refusal to follow lawful and reasonable orders)
Gross and habitual neglect of duties
Fraud or willful breach of trust
Commission of a crime related to work
Other analogous causes

However, even when a just cause exists, termination requires procedural due process:

First written notice stating the acts/omissions and grounds
Opportunity to explain and be heard (at least a meaningful chance to respond)
Second written notice of decision

So, “RTO or you’re terminated tomorrow”—without notice, explanation, hearing, and a defensible basis—creates legal exposure.

4) Telecommuting Act (RA 11165) and telecommuting arrangements

The Telecommuting Act recognizes telecommuting/work-from-home arrangements and emphasizes that telecommuting should not result in less favorable treatment compared to office-based employees in terms of:

Terms and conditions of employment
Training, promotion, benefits
Work hours, rest days, and occupational safety standards (as applicable)

Telecommuting is generally understood as a work arrangement implemented through agreement/policy, and employers should avoid treating WFH as a “lesser” status or using RTO selectively as punishment.

Practical takeaway: If WFH/hybrid was implemented as a documented arrangement (contract addendum, policy, consistent approvals), unilateral and abrupt withdrawal—especially if punitive or discriminatory—may be challenged.

When forced RTO can be legitimate (low constructive-dismissal risk scenarios)

An RTO directive is more defensible when:

The job is inherently office-based (e.g., sensitive on-site operations, face-to-face client services, physical equipment access).
Employment contract or policy reserves office reporting and WFH was clearly temporary or discretionary.
There is a clear business justification (security, compliance, operational coordination, client requirements).
The employer gives reasonable advance notice, transition time, and a well-communicated policy.
There is uniform application of rules (no targeted retaliation).
The employer addresses occupational safety and health, access, and practical constraints reasonably.
There is no pay cut, no demotion, and no hidden penalty disguised as “policy.”

Even with a legitimate RTO order, termination for noncompliance should still follow:

A lawful and reasonable directive
Progressive discipline (where appropriate)
Proper notices and opportunity to be heard

When forced RTO starts to look like constructive dismissal (high-risk patterns)

Forced RTO can drift into constructive dismissal when it functions as a pressure tactic to make the employee quit or when it causes undue prejudice without legitimate basis. High-risk indicators include:

A) Unreasonable transfer disguised as “RTO”

If “return to office” effectively means a transfer that is:

To a far location (e.g., different city/province)
Imposes heavy commuting burden and expense
Requires relocation without support
Done suddenly, without consultation or business necessity

Transfers are allowed under management prerogative, but not if they are:

Unreasonable
In bad faith
A demotion in disguise
Prejudicial to the employee
A form of retaliation

Example risk pattern: Employee hired for Metro Manila role is ordered to report daily to a newly assigned “office” in another region with minimal notice and no relocation support—paired with threats of termination.

B) Unilateral withdrawal of a benefit or established practice (diminution issues)

If WFH/hybrid has become:

An express term in the employment contract, or
A formal policy benefit, or
A consistent and deliberate practice over a long period (not occasional or ad hoc),

Then removing it abruptly can trigger disputes framed as:

Unilateral change in terms and conditions
Diminution of benefits (if WFH is treated as a benefit in practice)
Bad faith / unfair labor practice theories (depending on circumstances and union context)

Key point: Not every WFH setup is a “benefit” protected forever. But the more formal, consistent, and relied upon it is—especially if it was part of recruitment/retention promises—the higher the risk.

C) Selective enforcement and retaliation

RTO orders become legally risky when applied selectively to punish:

Whistleblowers
Employees who filed complaints
Union members
Employees who refused unlawful instructions
Those who requested benefits or accommodations

Selective RTO paired with threats—when others remain remote—can support an inference of bad faith or retaliatory motive.

D) Using termination threats to force resignation or silence dissent

Threats like:

“Sign this resignation or we will terminate you”
“Return tomorrow or you’re dismissed immediately”
“We’ll blacklist you / ruin your record”

…may support claims that the employer is creating a coercive environment. Even if the employer claims “policy enforcement,” the tone, timing, and targeting can matter.

E) Medical, disability, or protected-status concerns (failure to reasonably accommodate)

If the employee has:

A medical condition aggravated by commuting/office exposure
Disability-related needs (accessibility, fatigue, treatment schedules)
Pregnancy-related limitations
Documented mental health considerations

…a flat “RTO or terminated” stance, without engaging in a reasonable process (review of medical documents, temporary alternative arrangements, adjusted schedules), increases risk. While employers are not required to grant every request, outright refusal without evaluation can look unreasonable.

F) Pay/benefit impact hidden inside RTO implementation

RTO can become constructive dismissal if it causes:

Reduced pay via removal of agreed allowances tied to remote setup (or forced unpaid commuting time under certain pay structures)
Lower incentives through changed metrics designed to fail the employee
Demotion in role or status tied to RTO refusal

If the change effectively reduces compensation or rank, legal risk increases.

“RTO refusal = insubordination?” The legal test in practice

Employers commonly frame noncompliance as willful disobedience/insubordination. In Philippine labor disputes, this generally requires that the order is:

Lawful
Reasonable
Made known to the employee
Related to the duties the employee was engaged to perform

So, a refusal can be disciplinary—but the employer must show the directive meets those standards.

Where the employer may fail:

The order is punitive, retaliatory, discriminatory, or a disguised transfer
The order is impossible/unreasonable (e.g., immediate daily reporting with no notice; relocation requirement; serious documented medical constraints ignored)
The employer skips due process and jumps straight to dismissal

What employees must prove (and what employers must prove)

In constructive dismissal claims

Typically, the employee must show facts indicating:

The employer created conditions that are unreasonable or prejudicial, or
The employer’s conduct demonstrates bad faith, or
The employee had no real choice but to resign/leave

In illegal dismissal claims (termination happens)

The employer generally carries the burden to show:

A valid ground (just/authorized cause), and
Observance of procedural due process (notices + hearing/opportunity to respond)

Common fact patterns and how they tend to be analyzed

1) “WFH for 2 years, then mandatory RTO next week or termination”

Lower risk if contract/policy says office-based and WFH was temporary; employer gives notice and rationale; due process used for discipline.
Higher risk if abrupt, targeted, punitive, or clearly designed to force resignation; no meaningful notice; no process.

2) “RTO means reporting to a different site far away”

Likely analyzed as a transfer.
Risk rises if it’s prejudicial, unreasonable, or done in bad faith.

3) “Only certain employees are forced RTO; others remain remote”

Risk rises if selection correlates with complaints, protected characteristics, union activity, or retaliation.

4) “Employee has medical documentation requesting hybrid; employer refuses and threatens termination”

Risk rises if employer refuses to engage or consider alternatives; best practice is interactive review and documented rationale.

Remedies and liabilities if constructive dismissal/illegal dismissal is found

Potential relief in Philippine labor cases can include:

Reinstatement (actual reinstatement or payroll reinstatement depending on circumstances and orders)
Full backwages from dismissal (or constructive dismissal) until reinstatement/finality (subject to case specifics)
If reinstatement is no longer viable: separation pay in lieu of reinstatement
Monetary awards: unpaid wages/benefits, differentials, 13th month, etc., if proven
In appropriate cases: moral and exemplary damages (often tied to bad faith, oppression, or malice), and attorney’s fees (typically a percentage when warranted)

Prescription (time limits): Illegal dismissal-type actions are often treated as injuries to rights and commonly pursued within four (4) years, while many monetary claims prescribe in three (3) years—but strategy depends on the exact causes of action.

Practical guidance for employers (risk reduction checklist)

Document the business rationale for RTO (security, collaboration, client needs, compliance).
Review contracts and recruitment communications to see if WFH/hybrid was promised as a term.
Issue a clear written policy: scope, schedule, timelines, exceptions, performance expectations.
Provide reasonable transition time (phased return where feasible).
Apply rules consistently; avoid selective enforcement that looks retaliatory.
Offer a structured exception process (medical, disability, caregiving, extreme commute cases).
Avoid “instant termination” language; use progressive discipline and due process.
Train managers to communicate neutrally and avoid coercive threats.
Consider temporary measures: flexible hours, compressed workweeks, hybrid options, transport support (policy-based).
Keep records: notices, acknowledgments, accommodation evaluations, and the employee’s responses.

Practical guidance for employees (how to protect yourself)

Check your documents: employment contract, offer letter, company policies, WFH agreements, memos, and emails about WFH being “permanent,” “indefinite,” or “benefit.”
Ask for the RTO directive in writing and clarify:
- Start date, schedule, assigned worksite
- Grounds for discipline if noncompliance
- Whether exceptions can be requested
Respond professionally in writing if you have constraints (distance, cost, medical, safety).
Propose alternatives (hybrid schedule, flexible hours, temporary arrangement) and provide supporting documentation when relevant.
Avoid impulsive resignation. If you resign, document why (constructive dismissal claims often hinge on proof that resignation was forced by unreasonable conditions).
Keep records of threats, selective enforcement, retaliatory remarks, or inconsistent treatment.
If discipline/termination is initiated, demand due process and submit a written explanation.
If the situation becomes untenable, consult counsel or approach the proper labor dispute mechanisms (e.g., NLRC processes), especially before signing resignations, quitclaims, or “waivers.”

Key takeaways

RTO is often within management prerogative, but implementation matters.
Threatened termination is legally risky when it bypasses due process or enforces an unreasonable/unlawful order.
Constructive dismissal risk increases when RTO functions as a disguised transfer, a targeted punishment, a unilateral and prejudicial change to established terms, or is implemented in bad faith.
The safest approach—on both sides—is written clarity, reasonableness, consistency, and documented good faith.

This article is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. If you share the specific facts (role, location, how long WFH existed, what your contract/policies say, and the exact wording of the threats), I can map your scenario to the risk factors above and outline the strongest arguments likely to matter in a Philippine labor dispute.