Santos Hauling Incorporated (SHI) dismissed its drivers and helpers after discovering that they were committing anomalous transactions involving the sale of excess broilers and crates, without the knowledge and consent of SHI. The drivers and helpers filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against SHI. In its defense, SHI presented as evidence the affidavits of co-employees narrating the alleged anomalous transactions in detail.
May the drivers and helpers be dismissed on the basis of these affidavits? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ads.
Our Constitution, statutes and jurisprudence uniformly guarantee to every employee or worker tenurial security.9 What this means is that an employer shall not dismiss an employee except for a just or authorized cause and only after due process is observed.10
In the case of Brown Madonna Press, Inc. v. Casas,11 this Court held:
In determining whether an employee's dismissal had been legal, the inquiry focuses on whether the dismissal violated his right to substantial and procedural due process. An employee's right not to be dismissed without just or authorized cause as provided by law, is covered by his right to substantial due process. Compliance with procedure provided in the Labor Code, on the other hand, constitutes the procedural due process right of an employee.
Ads.
RE: The violation of either the substantial due process right or the procedural due process right of an employee produces different results. (Brown Madonna Press, Inc. v. Casas citing note no. 12)
Termination without a just or authorized cause renders the dismissal invalid, and entitles the employee to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time the compensation was not paid up to the time of actual reinstatement.
An employee's removal for just or authorized cause but without complying with the proper procedure, on the other hand, does not invalidate the dismissal. It obligates the erring employer to pay nominal damages to the employee, as penalty for not complying with the procedural requirements of due process.
Ads.
Thus, two separate inquiries must be made in resolving illegal dismissal cases: first, whether the dismissal had been made in accordance with the procedure set in the Labor Code; and second, whether the dismissal had been for just or authorized cause.12
RELATED
As to substantive due process, this Court, in Agusan Del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al. v. Cagampang, et al.,13 held that:
a. In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause; failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.
b. The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the employee's defense.
c. If doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter.
d. Moreover, the quantum of proof required in determining the legality of an employee's dismissal is only substantial evidence.
e. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.14 (Agusan Del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al. v. Cagampang, et al. citing note no. 14) Ads.
In Unilever Philippines, Inc. v. Rivera,32 this Court laid down the guidelines on how to comply with procedural due process in terminating an employee, to wit:
“(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 (5) calendar days from receipt of the notice to give the employees an opportunity to study the accusation against them, consult a union official or lawyer, gather data and evidence, and decide on the defenses they will raise against the complaint. 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. 282 is being charged against the employees;
(2) After serving the first notice, the employers 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. Moreover, this conference or hearing could be used by the parties as an opportunity to come to an amicable settlement;
(3) After determining that termination of employment is justified, the employers shall serve the employees a written notice of termination indicating that: (1) all circumstances involving the charge against the employees have been considered; and (2) grounds have been established to justify the severance of their employment.33 (Unilever Philippines, Inc. v. Rivera citing note no. 33)”
Ads.
In one case, the Supreme Court held that there is a violation of procedural due process when the employee is not given a chance to give his side and to participate in the company’s investigation, to wit:
“In the instant case, the LA, the NLRC and the CA again uniformly ruled that respondent was dismissed sans procedural due process. The only notice given by petitioners to respondent was the notice of his 30-day preventive suspension and, as found by the LA, nothing therein indicated that he was required nor was given the opportunity to explain his side, considering that he was being implicated in the theft of the subject circuit breakers and other electrical products. It is true that petitioners (employers) conducted their own investigation but the same was made without the participation of respondent (employee).” (Bold emphasis and underlining supplied). **
Ads.
If the dismissal is based on just cause, the court deems it appropriate to fix the amount of nominal damages at P30,000.00, consistent with its ruling in Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission.
Meanwhile, if the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Article 298 but the employer fails to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction is stiffer compared to termination based on Article 297 because the dismissal was initiated by the employer's exercise of its management prerogative. In such a case, the nominal damages in the sum of P50,000.00 are proper based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Nippon Housing Phil., Inc. v. Leynes. ***
Ads.
FOOTNOTES
14 Agusan de! Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al. v. Cagampang, et al., supra, at 313, citing Philippine Long Distance Company, Inc. v. Tiamson, 511 Phil. 384, 394-395 (2005).
33 Unilever Philippines, Inc. v. Rivera, supra, at 136-137, citing King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac, 553 Phil. 108, 115-116 (2007). (Emphasis in the original)
** DISTRIBUTION & CONTROL PRODUCTS, INC.NINCENT M. TIAMSIC, vs. JEFFREY E. SANTOS, July 10, 2017, G.R. No. 212616
*** (GERTRUDES D. MEJILA, PETITIONER, VS. WRIGLEY PHILIPPINES, INC., JESSELYN P. PANIS, ET AL., [ G.R. No. 199469, September 11, 2019 ] citing the case of Agabon and Nippon)
Ads.
Ads.
Ads.
Ads.
Lawyer t-shirt
Ads.
Ads.
Ads.
Ads.
Kommentare