For the dismissal of an employee to be valid, it must be for a just cause and with due process of law. This is again reiterated in this case of Pedro.
Sometime in the middle of 1996 Pedro was hired by a company engaged in the business of constructing billboards and advertising signs (EASI) as its company driver. In the course of his employment Pedro has been suspended from work several times due to frequent tardiness and absenteeism.
Only two incidents that happened in the year 2000 however were duly documented. The first was the written order dated May 15, 2000 suspending him for two days for his failure to report for work without prior notice and leave approval between May 12 and May 15 which prevented the other workers from being transported to the job site as there was no other driver available. Then on May 17, 2000 another one week suspension order was served on him for barging into the premises of the Outright Division and threatening the personnel therein with bodily harm if they did not stop doing their work.
On May 25, 2000 when Pedro reported back to work after his one week suspension he was surprised when the security guard on duty prevented him from entering the premises and instead handed him a termination letter dated May 20, 2000 for the following causes: first his absence from work for two days without prior notice and approval; second his act of barging into the premises of the Outright Division and threatening the employees therein with bodily harm if they didn’t stop working; and third his frequent tardiness in reporting for work. Was Pedro validly dismissed?
No. The validity of an employee’s dismissal hinges on compliance with the procedural due process requirement, the basic components of which are the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself; and the substantive requirement that the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided in the Labor Code.
With respect to the due process requirement, the employer is required to furnish the employee concerned with two written notices: first is the notice apprising the employee of the proper charge or the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; the second is the notice informing him of the management decision to terminate his services after he is given a reasonable period from receipt of the first notice within which to answer the charge and defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so desire.
Pedro’s dismissal did not comply with these basic requirements of due process. Although Pedro did not attempt to deny the grounds for his dismissal, EASI has not or even tried to notify Pedro of these three grounds with which he is charged. The only notice given to Pedro prior to his termination is the May 20, 2000 notice informing him that his employment in the company has been severed for said causes. The May 15 and May 17, 2000 suspension orders hardly constitute the first notice required by law prior to termination because they were notices of the grounds for suspension, not grounds for termination.
EASI has not also overcome the quantum of substantial evidence needed to establish the existence of just causes for the dismissal. The first and third charges of unauthorized two-day leave of absence and frequent tardiness have not been sufficiently proven by EASI. For one, the dates when Pedro incurred the alleged tardiness have not been identified. His daily time records which are actually within EASI’s power to produce and submit would have been the best evidence. The same applies to unauthorized absences of two days. It could not have referred to the absences mentioned in the May 15, 2000 suspension order for that refers to a four-day absence between May 12 and May 15, 2000. Besides, Pedro has already been sanctioned with suspension for such infraction.
Anent the ground that Pedro has terrorized the staff of the Outright Division, it is clear for the May 17, 2000 suspension order that he has already been penalized with suspension also for this offense. Hence this act may no longer be added to support the imposition of the ultimate penalty of dismissal from service nor may it be used as an independent ground to that end.
Pedro’s dismissal is therefore illegal. So EASI and its President should pay him jointly and severally back-wages and separation pay amounting to P271,673.08 plus 10% attorney’s fees (Erectors Advertising Sign and Amoroto vs. NLRC, G.R. 167218, July 2, 2010) –Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net
#WearMask #WashHands
#Distancing
#TakePicturesVideos
