Smart COO resigns after probe: lawyer speaks on handling workplace complaints against top leaders

Smart Communications' chief operating officer (COO) resigned in October 2025, following an internal investigation into allegations of workplace culture complaints.

The telecommunications company launched a formal probe after complaints reportedly surfaced both internally and online, placing the executive on leave before the eventual resignation.

The case has drawn attention to questions employers across industries must address: What happens when workplace culture complaints involve senior executives? How should organizations respond when allegations surface on social media before formal processes begin? And what legal protections exist for employees who report workplace behavior they consider inappropriate?

To understand the legal and HR frameworks that apply when leadership accountability is tested, HRD Asia spoke with Atty. Diomdelia B. Vergara, a lawyer of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).

Why third-party investigators matter

When workplace culture complaints involve top management, fairness and transparency require structural safeguards that internal teams alone cannot provide, Vergara explains.

"After proper verification of a complaint, and to ensure fairness and transparency, employers shall have a team, preferably not part of the organization, to handle complaints involving top management," she says. 

"Having a third-party team will leave an impression that the employer is taking the complaint seriously, even if it involves top management. This is also to guarantee that those involved in the hearing of the complaint will be objective and neutral."

The appearance of objectivity matters as much as actual objectivity. When the investigation team reports to the same executives being investigated, employees reasonably question whether findings will be genuine or protective.

Vergara also addresses preventive suspension, a tool typically reserved for non-managerial employees but potentially applicable to senior leadership. 

"Although the Labor Code's IRR exempts managerial employees from its coverage, such as COO in the case of Smart, the employer is not prohibited from making guidelines in cases of complaints involving top management, as this is still subject to the discretion of the employer," she explains.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Labor Code allow employers to place workers under preventive suspension if continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to life, property, or co-workers, for not longer than 30 days. While this provision doesn't cover top management, Vergara suggests employers can create their own policies for senior executives.

"So when workplace culture complaints involve top management, I think employers, after proper verification of a complaint, may apply Preventive Suspension to ensure fairness and transparency," she says. 

"Since the complaint involves top management, that is more reason that his mere presence in the workplace may influence the status of the complaint filed against him, which may [be perceived] as a threat to those who file the complaint, which may produce doubt regarding the fairness and transparency of the company regarding their complaint."

Risks when social media precedes due process

When workplace issues become public before formal investigations begin, organizations face dual exposure: legal proceedings influenced by public sentiment and reputational damage that affects business operations.

"The risks that organizations face when workplace issues are exposed on social media before due process can take place are: In legal, the objective-based hearing may be outweighed by the public opinion sympathizing with the involved worker/s," Vergara says.

"In reputation, the public support for the affected worker may call for a boycott of the product or services being offered by the employer."

Social media shifts power dynamics. What might have been resolved through internal processes becomes subject to public judgment that can pressure organizations toward outcomes driven by sentiment rather than evidence.

Where law draws the line on leadership behavior

Many employees struggle to distinguish between assertive management and conduct that crosses into harassment or abuse. Vergara explains where Philippine law establishes boundaries.

"There are cases elevated to the Supreme Court where workers were considered to be abused and harassed by their employer because of inhumane treatment. In these cases, the actions towards the worker are too discriminatory, amounting to a constructive dismissal," she says.

Constructive dismissal occurs when employment conditions become untenable. "Constructive dismissal arises 'when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank and/or a diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee.' In effect, constructive dismissal is involuntary resignation due to the situation's impossibility or unreasonableness, leaving an employee with no other option but to forego continued employment rather than trying to put up with an unbearable working environment."

Beyond constructive dismissal standards, Vergara identifies when leadership behavior violates legal protections. "In addition to constitutional rights and those granted by specific laws, the Labor Code provides for the minimum labor standards to which workers are entitled. When a leader's behavior encroaches any of these rights repeatedly and deliberately, that action may already be considered as harassment and/or abuse."

The scope of abuse has expanded beyond physical harm. "Moreover, the term abuse could no longer be limited to physical, but in this period, as mental health is being given attention to, psychological abuse escalates as an outcome of workplace harassment," Vergara notes.

Legal remedies for workplace bullying

While no specific law addresses workplace bullying directly, existing legal provisions offer recourse for employees experiencing repeated humiliation, verbal abuse, or intimidation.

"Although the labor code is silent on workplace bullying, the Supreme Court has already decided numerous cases involving constructive dismissal wherein the employer treats its employees unfairly to the extent that the employees needed to resign," Vergara explains.

Criminal law provides additional options. "On the other hand, the Revised Rules of Court allow a person to file a case for unjust vexation whenever there is an act or omission which annoys, irritates, or distresses another without lawful justification. This criminal provision, though a light offense, may be used by those who have experienced workplace bullying."

Defamation laws also apply to workplace conduct. "Also, the crime of slander, whether oral or by deed, may be filed against a person for defaming, humiliating, or casting dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person. If the humiliation was committed in writing, the person involved may be punished for violation of libel."

Digital platforms create additional liability. "If the libelous remarks are made using a computer system or any other similar means, including social media, a greater penalty may be imposed under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012," Vergara notes.

Ensuring investigations are impartial and defensible

When investigating alleged bullying or abusive behavior involving senior executives, procedural safeguards determine whether findings can withstand legal scrutiny.

"Always have proper documentation in all possible channels available. Make sure that the internal rules of the organization have been complied with, such as the observance of the period in taking actions and proper notice to the persons concerned," Vergara says.

"Our law is still a matter of evidence; a procedural lapse may greatly doubt the impartiality of an investigation."

Technology makes documentation both easier and more critical. "This may be prevented by having proper documentation, especially in this period of advanced technology, wherein a single click may cause a thousand pieces of proof which may or may not be for the defense of the organization itself," she explains.

Why documentation becomes a lifeline

Chat messages, written warnings, and exit interviews serve as evidence that determines whether behavior constitutes workplace bullying or legitimate management action.

"Documentation will be the lifeline of the organization," Vergara says. "It is easier now to get sympathy from the public because of social media, especially when the subject involves drama. Filipinos are undeniably sympathetic. Once they hear that someone is hurt, they immediately extend a hand to comfort. That will have a domino effect, causing a less objective view on the matter."

Comprehensive records protect organizations from emotional narratives that overshadow facts.

"Nonetheless, if you have a complete documentation of the incident, that will serve as a shield from all the drama and instead will help the organization to prove that your workplace is safe from bullying, though it has strict training," Vergara explains.

Rebuilding trust after investigations conclude

When internal investigations finish, leadership faces the challenge of restoring trust while demonstrating that accountability applies consistently across all organizational levels.

"Leaders shall warrant the adherence to the results of the internal investigation, including the imposition of proper penalty to the wrongdoer and the protection of the aggrieved party," Vergara says. "The latter faces the risk of retaliation from the former."

Protection from retaliation must be credible, not performative. "If the organization guarantees protection from top management bullying, this will create a nontoxic environment across all levels of the organization," she explains. "After all, rebuilding trust and ensuring accountability takes time."

What genuine accountability requires

Addressing wrongdoing through sanctions alone doesn't create lasting change. Vergara explains what genuine accountability looks like when organizations commit to cultural reform.

"From a legal standpoint, when wrongdoing is addressed not only through sanctions but through lasting cultural reform, genuine accountability in the workplace happens when leaders take into consideration the grievance of each worker, regardless of their rank and position, without being terrified that their personal relationship with the top management might be affected," she says.

Leadership must actively constrain the abuse of power. "Leaders shall remind those in the top management not to harass or abuse workers in the guise of management prerogatives," Vergara explains.

"Creating a guideline for top management may help build a safe space for all the workers."

For employers, the lesson is clear: investigations must be impartial, documentation protects against bias, and accountability requires not just sanctions but lasting cultural reform that ensures fairness and safety for all.