Practice question
A contractor produces a dated letter saying report to headquarters but no proof of a specific client, duties or actual resumption. It leaves the employee without work throughout the proceedings and beyond the ordinary limit, with no valid extension. Which is sound?
- The letter alone does not establish effective redeployment or defeat the constructive-dismissal analysis.
- The letter gives indefinite immunity.
- A headquarters invitation proves every client assignment.
- The employer may restart the clock by sending identical letters forever.
- An employee must accept a nonexistent assignment.
Legal references
- Sagarino v. Toplis Solutions, Inc., G.R. No. 267379, October 15, 2025, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/oct2025/gr_267379_2025.html
- Polintan v. Malabanan, G.R. No. 268527, July 29, 2024, main decision and reproduced DO 215-20: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/jul2024/gr_268527_2024.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.