Article 113 of the Labor Code:

ART. 113. No employer, in his own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make any
deduction from the wages of his employees, except:

(a) In cases where the worker is insured with his consent by the
employer, and the deduction is to recompense the employer for the amount paid by
him as premium on the insurance;

(b) For union dues, in cases where the right of the worker or his
union to check-off has been recognized by the employer or authorized in writing by
the individual worker concerned; and

(c) In cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations

issued by the Secretary of Labor,

Also, in Maquiling v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.,10 it was stressed that

the first notice must inform outright the employee that an investigation will be
conducted on the charges particularized therein which, if proven, will result to
his dismissal. Such notice must not only contain a plain statement of the charges
of malfeasance or misfeasance but must categorically state the effect on his
employment if the charges are proven to be true. The rationale for this rule was
explained by the Court as follows:

This notice will afford the employee an opportunity to avail all defenses and
exhaust all remedies to refute the allegations hurled against him for what is at
stake is his very life and limb his employment. Otherwise, the employee may just
disregard the notice as a warning without any disastrous consequence to be
anticipated. Absent such statement, the first notice falls short of the requirement
of due process. Ones work is everything, thus, it is not too exacting to impose
this strict requirement on the part of the employer before the dismissal process be
validly effected. This is in consonance with the rule that all doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including
its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.

In the instant case, the first notice issued by petitioner fell short of the
requirement of the law because it merely referred to the section of the company
rule allegedly violated by private respondent. The notice failed to specify the
penalty for the charges which is dismissal, and to indicate the precise act or
omission which constituted as the ground for which dismissal is sought.
ELECTRO SYSTEM INDUSTRIES CORPORATION vs. NLRC G.R. No. 165282 (October 5, 2005)

-----------

IRR of Republic Act No. 8187

SECTION 3. Conditions for entitlement of paternity leave benefits.

A married male employee shall be entitled to paternity benefits
provided that:
a. he is employed at the time of delivery of his child;
b. he has notified his employer of the pregnancy of his wife and her
expected date of delivery subject to the provisions of Section 4 hereof;
and
c. his wife has given birth, suffers a miscarriage or an abortion.
SECTION 4. Notification. As soon as the married male employee
learns that his spouse is pregnant, he shall inform his employer of
such pregnancy and the expected date of delivery within a reasonable
period of time.