Aliling’s right to procedural due process was violated
As earlier stated, to effect a legal dismissal,
the employer must show not only a valid ground therefor, but also that procedural
due process has properly been observed. When the Labor Code speaks of
procedural due process, the reference is usually to the two (2)-written notice
rule envisaged in Section 2 (III), Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code, which provides:
Section 2. Standard of due process: requirements of notice. — In all cases of
termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be
substantially observed.
I. For termination of employment based on just
causes as defined in Article 282 of the Code:
(a) A written notice served on the employee
specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee
reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side;
(b) A hearing or conference during which the
employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the employee so desires,
is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut
the evidence presented against him; and
(c) A written notice [of] termination served
on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstance,
grounds have been established to justify his termination.
In case of termination, the foregoing notices
shall be served on the employee’s last known address.
MGG Marine Services, Inc. v. NLRC[38] tersely
described the mechanics of what may be considered a two-part due process requirement which includes the
two-notice rule, “x x x one, of the intention to dismiss, indicating therein
his acts or omissions complained against, and two, notice of the decision to
dismiss; and an opportunity to answer and rebut the charges against him, in
between such notices.”
(1)
The first
written notice to be served on the employees should contain the specific
causes or grounds for termination against them, and a directive that the
employees are given the opportunity to submit their written explanation within
a reasonable period. “Reasonable opportunity” under the Omnibus Rules means
every kind of assistance that management must accord to the employees to enable
them to prepare adequately for their defense. This should be construed as a period
of at least five calendar days from receipt of the notice xxxx Moreover, in
order to enable the employees to intelligently prepare their explanation and
defenses, the notice should contain a detailed narration of the facts and
circumstances that will serve as basis for the charge against the employees. A
general description of the charge will not suffice. Lastly, the notice should specifically mention which company rules,
if any, are violated and/or which among the grounds under Art. 288 [of the
Labor Code] is being charged against the employees
(2)
After serving the first notice, the employees should schedule and conduct a hearing or conference wherein the employees will be given the opportunity to
(1) explain and clarify their defenses to the charge against them; (2) present
evidence in support of their defenses; and (3) rebut the evidence presented
against them by the management. During the hearing or conference, the employees
are given the chance to defend themselves personally, with the assistance of a
representative or counsel of their choice x x x.
(3)
After determining that termination is justified, the employer shall serve the
employees a written notice of
termination indicating that: (1) all the circumstances involving the charge
against the employees have been considered; and (2) grounds have been
established to justify the severance of their employment. (Emphasis in the original.)
Here, the first and second notice requirements
have not been properly observed, thus tainting petitioner’s dismissal with
illegality.
The adverted memo dated September 20,
2004 of WWWEC supposedly informing Aliling of the likelihood of his termination
and directing him to account for his failure to meet the expected job
performance would have had constituted the “charge sheet,” sufficient to answer
for the first notice requirement, but for the fact that there is no proof such
letter had been sent to and received by him. In fact, in his December 13, 2004 Complainant’s
Reply Affidavit, Aliling goes on to tag such letter/memorandum as
fabrication. WWWEC did not adduce proof to show that a copy of the letter was
duly served upon Aliling. Clearly enough, WWWEC did not comply with the first
notice requirement.
x x x."
See -
THIRD DIVISION
|
ARMANDO ALILING,
Petitioner,
-
versus -
JOSE B. FELICIANO, MANUEL BERSAMIN,
JJ.
F. SAN MATEO III, JOSEPH R.
LARIOSA, and WIDE WIDE Promulgated:
WORLD EXPRESS CORPORATION,
Respondents.
|
|
G.R. No. 185829
Present:
VELASCO,
JR., J., Chairperson
PERALTA,
ABAD,
MENDOZA, and
PERLAS-BERNABE,
JJ.
Promulgated:
April
25, 2012
|
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
