Guidelines for Conducting an Administrative Hearing

The proceedings must not be done in a manner whereby the employer is prosecutor and
judge at the same time.
This can be done in a hearing where a person who does not personally know the
employee charged with an offense or the accuser-co-employee, stands as the prosecutor.
This person should preferably be the legal counsel of the hospital but in his/her absence
any objective person may do, like the employee welfare officer of the HR. The discipline
committee should sit as the impartial judge or jury. Their task is to observe with
objectivity the whole proceeding and make an independent judgment. They may
however, ask clarificatory questions.
After the hearings, the discipline committee must make a decision taking into
consideration only the evidence and testimony produced in the hearing, its decision must
not be influenced by any thing else outside of the hearing. The prosecutor may however,
make recommendations to the disciplining committee as to the penalty to be imposed.
The evidence against the employee must speak for itself and must be enough to make a
clear and convincing showing of a just and lawful cause to discipline him/her (there must
be substantial evidence).
1. The employee charged should be asked if he has decided to be represented by
counsel or if has decided to waive such right. After the hearing the employee
charged should be made to sign the minutes of the hearing. This will at least serve
as evidence that the employee has opted not to be represented by counsel.
2. The hearings should start with the reading of the charges against the employee out
loud, narrating the relevant facts.
3. The prosecutor will first be given the chance to present all the evidence against
the employee charged. Only evidence pertinent/relevant to the charges contained
in the first notice can be presented. Witnesses or the accuser-co-employee may be
presented.
4. The employee charged or his counsel must be allowed to examine the witnesses or
accuser-co-employee on any relevant matter, and make any comment as to the
evidence against him or question it.
5. After the prosecution has presented all its evidence and witnesses, the employee
or his representative will then present his/her side of the story, first his/her
evidence then witnesses.
6. The prosecution will be allowed to examine the witnesses for the employee
charged and make any comment on the evidence presented.
7. Each side will then take turns presenting their side until all matters and issues
have been properly threshed out and both sides are satisfied.
8. The hearings shall be held for such number of days as shall be necessary, where
both sides may present additional witnesses or further evidence as each side may
require.

9. At the end of the final hearing the committee will inform the employee charged
that he will be notified of their decision with in a period of at least three days. He
will also be given a copy of the minutes of the hearings.
Guidelines for the Discipline Committee in imposing penalties on an employee
MODERATING THE PENALTY IMPOSABLE UPON AN EMPLOYEE FOR
COMMITTING AN INFRACTION
The employers prerogative to discipline its employees should be tempered with
compassion and understanding. (Maglutuc vs. NLRC, 1990, 189 SCRA 767). The penalty
it must impose should be commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of its
infraction. For what is at stake is not just the employees job but her/his livelihood as
well. The fundamental law of the land (Constitution) regards the workers with
compassion because if a penalty less punitive suffices, whatever missteps may have been
committed by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe for it is not just
the working man that is the concern of the law but also his family. Experience shows that
unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows upon those dependent upon the wage
earner. (Amira vs. B.F. Goodrich Phils., Inc., 1974, 58SCRA 120)
RIGHT TO IMPOSE HEAVIER PENALTY THAN WHAT THE COMPANY RULES
PRESCRIBE
The employer has the right to impose a heavier penalty than that prescribed in the
company rules and regulations if circumstances warrant the imposition thereof. The fact
that the offense was committed for the first time or has not resulted in any prejudice to
the company was held not to be a valid excuse. No employer may rationally be expected
to continue in employment a person whose lack of morals, respect and loyalty to his
employer, regard for his employers rules, and appreciation of the dignity and
responsibility of his office, has so plainly and completely been bared. Company rules
and regulations cannot operate to altogether negate the employers prerogative and
responsibility to determine and declare whether or not facts not explicitly set out in the
rules may and do constitute such serious misconduct as to justify the dismissal of the
employee or the imposition of sanctions heavier than those specifically and expressly
prescribed therein. This is dictated by logic, otherwise, the rules, literally applied, would
result in absurdity; grave offenses, e.g., rape, would be penalized by mere suspension,
this, despite the heavier penalty provided therefore by the Labor Code or otherwise
dictated by common sense. (Stanford Microsystems, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. N.o. 163091,
Oct. 6, 2010)
This rule should be applied to the gravest of offenses not covered by the Code of
Discipline; especially where the employee is sought to be dismissed for such offense,
because the policy of the state as reflected in our labor law is always leniency.

CORRECT RULE WITH RESPECT TO PREVIOUS INFRACTIONS OF THE

EMPLOYEE VIS--VIS A SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE COMMITTED
The correct rule, according to the Supreme Court, is that previous infractions of an
employee may be used as justification for his dismissal or in aggravation of the penalty
for a present offense only if it is in connection with the subsequent offense. (Filipro, Inc.
vs. Ople Cited in the case of Stellar Industrial Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, 1996, 252 SCRA
323) Otherwise, such previous infraction cannot be utilized to aggravate the present or
subsequent offense. In which case, the penalty imposable shall only be commensurate
with the nature and gravity of the present offense committed and charged, taking into
consideration the varying circumstances surrounding the particular subsequent case. (De
Guzman vs. NLRC and Rex Bookstore, Inc. G.R. N.O. 130617, August 11, 1999)
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYEES
In termination cases, the burden of proof to prove the dismissal of an employee was for
just cause (Art. 282) and after due process falls on the employer. As such, the evidence of
the employer must stand or fall on its merits, and cannot draw strength from the weakness
of the employees claims. A dismissed employee is not required to prove his innocence of
the charges leveled against him by his employer. The employers failure to prove the
existence of just cause to dismiss would result in a finding that the dismissal is unjustified
and illegal. (Carlito Garcia et al vs. NLRC, G.R. N.O. 113774, April 15, 1998)
In terminating an employee, consideration should be made of
a) The employees long years of service.
b) Whether or not the act complained of is a first offense.
c) Whether or not the sum if property is involved is large.
d) Whether or not the acts complained of shows moral depravity or total disregard
for the employer, co-employees or clients/patients. (PT&T Corp. vs. NLRC)
In the cases where an employee admits the commission of an error and agrees to tender
his/her resignation, but later on reneges on such agreement, the employee should be
formally charged and given the opportunity to refute the charges. (Villarama vs. NLRC
and Golden Donuts, Inc. G.R. N.O. 106341, Sept. 2, 1994)
Clearly, even in the absence of a written company rule defining gross and habitual
neglect of duties, respondents omissions qualify as such warranting his dismissal from
the service.
We cannot simply tolerate injustice to employers if only to protect the welfare of
undeserving employees. As aptly put by then Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing:
Needless to say, so irresponsible an employee like petitioner does not deserve a place in
the workplace, and it is within the managements prerogative xxx to terminate his

employment. Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of employees, it must also
protect the rights of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives.
As long as the companys exercise of those rights and prerogative is in good faith to
advance its interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of
employees under the laws or valid agreements, such exercise will be upheld.
While it is true that compassion and human consideration should guide the disposition of
cases involving termination of employment since it affects one's source or means of
livelihood, it should not be overlooked that the benefits accorded to labor do not include
compelling an employer to retain the services of an employee who has been shown to be
a gross liability to the employer. The law in protecting the rights of the employees
authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. 54 It should be made
clear that when the law tilts the scale of justice in favor of labor, it is but a recognition of
the inherent economic inequality between laborand management. The intent is to balance
the scale of justice; to put the two parties on relatively equal positions. There may be
cases where the circumstances warrant favoring labor over the interests of management
but never should the scale be so tilted if the result is an injustice to the employer. Justitia
nemini neganda est (Justice is to be denied to none). (Mansion Printing Center and
Clement Cheng vs. Diosdado Bitara, Jr. G.R. No. 168120, Jan. 25, 2012)