abogadomo Philippine Law. Simple.

Custom Search

HOMEPHILIPPINE LAWS

RECENT LAWS

TAX, BUSINESS & INVESTMENT LAWS

CRIMINAL LAWS

PERSONS AND FAMILY LAWS

HEALTH AND INSURANCE LAWS

RULES OF COURT

PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE

LEGAL DOCTRINES

LEGAL DOCTRINES ARCHIVE

NOTABLE CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT

LEGAL TOPICS

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CORPORATE AND COMMERCIAL LAW

CRIMINAL LAW

ELECTION LAW

FAMILY LAW

INSURANCE LAW

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

LABOR LAW

LEGAL FORMS
AFFIDAVIT

GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

RELEASE WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

LAW PROFESSOR

LAW PROFESSOR ARCHIVES

BAR MATTERS

BAR EXAMS QUESTIONS

BAR EXAMS RESULTS

Twin Notice Requirement in Dismissal of Employees

It is a cardinal rule in law that due process must always be observed. In labor cases, employers have
often lost cases because they have not complied with procedural due process in the dismissal of their
employees. In the case of San Antonio vs NLRC, et al.[G.R. No. 100829. November 28, 1995.], the
Supreme Court held that:

“The rudiments of due process cannot be lightly ignored. Proper compliance with the twin requirements
of notice and hearing are conditions sine qua non before a dismissal may be validly effected. Elucidating,
the Court, in Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. NLRC, (210 SCRA 277, 286) explained: “The law requires that the
employer must furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with two (2) written notices before
termination of employment can be legally effected: (1) notice which apprises the employee of the
particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent notice which
informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him (Sec. 13, BP 130; Sec. 2-6 Rule XIV, Book
V, Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code as amended). Failure to comply with the
requirements taints the dismissal with illegality. This procedure is mandatory; in the absence of which,
any judgment reached by management is void and inexistent.” The second notice must be given the
employee after due hearing. The hearing requirement is not to be considered a mere technicality but
one of substance to which every employee is entitled in order to at all times assure that the employer’s
prerogative to dismiss or lay-off is not abused or exercised in an arbitrary manner. Consultations and
conferences may not be valid substitutes for actual observance of notice and hearing. Any procedural
shortcut, that effectively allows an employer to assume the roles of both accuser and judge at the same
time, should not be countenanced. Not excluded from the rule are confidential and managerial
employees; they themselves cannot be arbitrarily dismissed without such just causes as must be
reasonably established in appropriate investigations. Shortly after petitioner, in compliance with the
company’s directive, had explained why he should not be disciplinary dealt, he received forthwith the
company’s “decision” dismissing him from employment. No hearing, or a semblance thereof, was
conducted apparently because the company believed that the case was res ipsa loquitur in character.”

The Supreme Court further elucidated the twin notice requirement in the case of Nitto Enterprises vs
NLRC [G.R. No. L-114337. September 29, 1995.], to wit:

“There is an abundance of cases wherein the Court ruled that the twin requirements of due process,
substantive and procedural, must be complied with, before valid dismissal exists. Without which, the
dismissal becomes void.The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of
due process. This simply means that the employer shall afford the worker ample opportunity to be heard
and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires. Ample opportunity
connotes every kind of assistance that management must accord the employee to enable him to prepare
adequately for his defense including legal representation.

As held in the case of Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Inc. v. NLRC:

“The law requires that the employer must furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with two (2) written
notices before termination of employee can be legally effected: (1) notice which apprises the employee
of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and (2) the subsequent notice which
informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him (Sec. 13, BP130, Sec. 2-6 Rule XIV, Book
V, Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code as amended). Failure to comply with the
requirements taints the dismissal with illegality. This procedure is mandatory; in the absence of which,
any judgment reached by management is void and inexistent (Tingson, Jr. vs. NLRC, 185 SCRA 498 [1990];
National Service Corp. vs. NLRC, 168 SCRA 122, Ruffy vs. NLRC. 182 SCRA 365 L [1990]).”

Links

Follow Us on Twitter

List of Philippine Lawyers

Supreme Court of the Philippines

Tanjutco Law Office

Town and Country Homes

Categories

Categories

Recent Posts

Sereno ousted as Chief Justice

Swiss court fines man for libel due to Facebook likes

Pnoy appoints Caguioa as new SC Associate Justice

Supreme Court decides on the Cybercrime Prevention Act

SC lifts five-strike rule for bar examinees

Abogadomo Asks?

Do you agree with the Supreme Court decision on Chief Justice Sereno?

Yes

No

View Results

© Copyright 1999-2011. abogadomo.com, All rights reserved.

Disclaimer