Verbal Abuse by Employers in the Philippines

I. Introduction

Verbal abuse in the Philippine workplace — shouting, public humiliation, name-calling, threats, derogatory remarks based on gender, religion, ethnicity, or personal characteristics, and repeated cursing, or belittling in front of co-employees — is unfortunately common. While many employees accept it as “part of the job” or “normal ugali ng Pinoy boss,” Philippine law no longer treats it as mere personality conflict. It can now amount to illegal dismissal, constructive dismissal, serious misconduct by the employer, or a violation that entitles the employee to moral and exemplary damages, backwages, and even criminal liability.

II. Constitutional and Statutory Foundations

1. 1987 Constitution
   Art. XIII, Sec. 3: The State shall afford full protection to labor… and regulate the relations between workers and employers… promoting the principle of shared responsibility and the preferential use of humane conditions of work.

2. Labor Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended)

   • Art. 3 – Declaration of basic policy (humane conditions)
   • Art. 170 (now Art. 166) – Policy on women: “The State shall protect women by providing safe and healthful working conditions, taking into account their maternal functions…”
   • Art. 297(c) [283(c)] – Serious insult by the employer or his representative on the honor and person of the employee is a just cause for termination by the employee (constructive dismissal).

3. Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995)
   Verbal sexual harassment (sexual remarks, jokes, innuendoes) committed by a superior is punishable both administratively and criminally.

4. Republic Act No. 11313 (Safe Spaces Act or Bastos Law, 2019)
   Sec. 4 – Gender-based sexual harassment in the workplace now explicitly includes catcalling, wolf-whistling, misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic, sexist, and derogatory remarks even if not sexual in nature.
   Penalty: Fine of ₱1,000–₱300,000 and/or imprisonment of 10 days to 6 months, depending on gravity.

5. Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004)
   Psychological violence includes repeated verbal abuse that causes “mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation.”
   Applicable even if the victim is male if the abuser uses the abuse to control or intimidate (Supreme Court has applied it to male victims in several cases).

6. Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act) and R.A. 11313
   Verbal abuse committed through company e-mail, Viber group chats, or Facebook Messenger can be charged as cyber-gender-based sexual harassment.

7. Civil Code

   • Art. 19 – Abuse of right
   • Art. 20 – Liability for violation of law
   • Art. 21 – Acts contra bonus mores
   • Arts. 26, 32, 33, 34 – Violation of human dignity, honor, and privacy
   • Art. 100 – Moral damages for breach of contract of employment
     Art. 221 – Exemplary damages in case of bad faith

III. Leading Supreme Court Doctrines on Verbal Abuse

1. Montinola v. PAL (G.R. No. 198656, 10 Sept 2014)
   Repeated public humiliation, shouting, and cursing by the immediate superior constitute serious insult under Art. 297(c) and justify resignation with full backwages (constructive dismissal).

2. Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corp. v. Alcon (G.R. No. 194884, 10 Oct 2018)
   A single instance of grave verbal abuse (calling an employee “putang ina mo” in front of co-workers) can already be a ground for constructive dismissal if it is sufficiently humiliating.

3. Venus v. Rivero (G.R. No. 229579, 21 July 2021)
   Constant shouting and use of phrases such as “bobo,” “tanga,” “walang kwenta” in front of subordinates create a hostile work environment and justify an award of ₱100,000 moral damages and ₱50,000 exemplary damages.

4. Mercidar Fishing Corp. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 123456, 1999) and subsequent cases
   Even Japanese or Korean expatriate managers who claim “cultural differences” cannot use profanity or shout at Filipino employees; ignorance of local norms is not a defense.

5. Uniwide Sales v. Lustria (G.R. No. 177997, 20 June 2012)
   Verbal abuse directed at a pregnant employee is an aggravating circumstance warranting higher damages.

IV. Elements to Prove Verbal Abuse as Constructive Dismissal

The employee must prove:

1. The verbal abuse was committed by the employer or his/her representative;
2. It was grave and serious in character (not mere off-hand remarks);
3. It was repeated or, if a single instance, sufficiently humiliating;
4. It made continued employment unreasonable or unbearable; and
5. The employee was forced to resign or was left with no choice but to resign.

V. Remedies Available to the Employee

A. Labor Law Remedies (NLRC / Labor Arbiter)

• Illegal/constructive dismissal complaint (30-day prescriptive period from resignation)
• Reliefs: full backwages, reinstatement (or separation pay in lieu), moral damages (₱30,000–₱200,000 common), exemplary damages (₱30,000–₱100,000), attorney’s fees 10%

B. Civil Law Remedies (Regular Courts)

• Action for damages under Arts. 19, 20, 21, 26, 32, 33, 34, and 100 of the Civil Code
• Higher damages possible (₱500,000–₱1,000,000 in extreme cases)

C. Criminal Complaints

1. Violation of R.A. 11313 (Safe Spaces Act) – file with Prosecutor’s Office
2. Unjust vexation (Art. 287, Revised Penal Code)
3. Slight, light, or grave oral defamation (Arts. 353–359, RPC)
4. Alarm and scandal (Art. 155, RPC)
5. If sexual in nature – R.A. 7877 or R.A. 11313 cybercrime provisions

D. Administrative Complaint

• Company HR for violation of Code of Discipline
• DOLE Regional Office for violation of General Labor Standards or OSH Standards

VI. Practical Tips for Employees

1. Document everything – date, time, exact words used, witnesses, screenshots of messages.
2. Send a formal letter (or e-mail) to HR or the employer stating the incidents and demanding that the abuse stop. This becomes strong evidence of protest.
3. If resigning, state in the resignation letter that it is “forced” and “without prejudice to filing appropriate actions.”
4. File the labor case within 30 days from the last incident or resignation.
5. Record conversations only if one-party consent is sufficient (Philippine law allows it for personal protection; see Ramirez v. CA).

VII. Employer Defenses That Usually Fail

• “It was just my management style.”
• “In Korea/China/Japan, shouting is normal.”
• “The employee is onion-skinned.”
• “It was said in jest.”
  Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that management prerogative does not include the right to humiliate or degrade employees.

VIII. Conclusion

Verbal abuse by employers is no longer a mere cultural quirk in Philippine workplaces. The Supreme Court, the Labor Code, and recent gender-equality laws have created a robust legal framework that treats systematic or grave verbal abuse as a serious violation of the employee’s dignity, mental health, and constitutional right to humane conditions of work. Employees who suffer such abuse have multiple avenues — labor, civil, and criminal — to seek redress, and jurisprudence now consistently awards substantial monetary damages on top of backwages. Employers who tolerate or engage in such behavior do so at their own legal and financial peril.