CASE 2012-0068: JARL CONSTRUCTION AND ARMANDO K. TEJADA VS. SIMEON A. ATENCIO, 01 AUGUST 2012 (G.R. NO. 175969, 01 AUGUST 2012, DEL CASTILLO, J.) SUBJECT/S: DISMISSAL OF AN EMPLOYEE FOR JUST CAUSE; BURDEN OF PROOF RE UNPAID SALARIES. (BRIEF TITLE: TEJADA VS. ATENCTIO).
======================
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE. premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The november 29. 2005 Decision of the CoURT of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 90517 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED
======================
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
WHAT ARE THE LEGAL BASIS OF THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS IN TERMINATING AN EMPLOYEE.
THE LABOR CODE AND ITS IMPLEMENTING RULES
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
WHAT DOES THE LABOR CODE PROVIDES?
ARTICLE 277(B) OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442 OR THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES REQUIRES ACCORDING THE EMPLOYEE BOTH NOTICE AND HEARING, THUS:
ART. 277 – MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
x x x x
(b) x x x, [T]he employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so desires in accordance with company rules and regulations x x x.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
WHAT DOES THE IMPLEMENTING RULES SAY?
SECTION 2(D), RULE 1, BOOK VI OF THE OMNIBUS RULES IMPLEMENTING THE LABOR CODE EXPOUNDS ON THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS THAT EVERY EMPLOYER MUST OBSERVE IN A TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT BASED ON A JUST CAUSE:
Section 2. Security of Tenure. – x x x (d)
In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed:
For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Labor Code:
(i) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side.
(ii) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if he so desires is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him.
(iii) A written notice of termination served on the employee, indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have beenestablished to justify his termination.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
WHAT ARE THE PURPOSES OF THE TWO NOTICES?
THE FIRST NOTICE, WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED AS THE PROPER CHARGE, SERVES TO APPRISE THE EMPLOYEE OF THE PARTICULAR ACTS OR OMISSIONS FOR WHICH HIS DISMISSAL IS SOUGHT.
THE SECOND NOTICE ON THE OTHER HAND SEEKS TO INFORM THE EMPLOYEE OF THE EMPLOYER’S DECISION TO DISMISS HIM. THIS DECISION, HOWEVER, MUST COME ONLY AFTER THE EMPLOYEE IS GIVEN A REASONABLE PERIOD FROM RECEIPT OF THE FIRST NOTICE WITHIN WHICH TO ANSWER THE CHARGE AND AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND DEFEND HIMSELF WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF A REPRESENTATIVE, IF HE SO DESIRES.
THIS IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE LAW ON THE PROTECTION TO LABOR AND THE BROADER DICTATES OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. NON-COMPLIANCE THEREWITH IS FATAL BECAUSE THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE CONDITIONS SINE QUA NON BEFORE DISMISSAL MAY BE VALIDLY EFFECTED.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
IN THIS CASE THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF RESPONDENT EMPLOYEE WAS ENGAGED BY PETITIONER. WHEN RESPONDENT COMPANY’S SERVICES WERE TERMINATED, PETITIONER TERMINATED ALSO THE SERVICES OF SAID EMPLOYEE. PETITIONER ARGUED THAT RESPONDENT WAS AWARE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM DUE TO COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT’S COMPANY. WAS PETITIONER CORRECT?
NO. THERE MUST BE CLEAR NOTICE TO THE EMPLOYEE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM. THE CHARGES WERE MADE AGAINST THE COMPANY. THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION ALSO PERTAINS TO THE TERMINATION OF THE SERVICES OF THE COMPANY.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
THE EMPLOYEE ALLEGED THAT HE WAS NOT PAID CERTAIN SALARIES AND 13TH MONTH PAY. WHO HAS THE BURDEN TO PROVE WHETHER SUCH BENEFITS WERE PAID?
THE BURDEN TO PROVE RESTS ON THE EMPLOYER. THE EMPLOYER’S EVIDENCE MUST SHOW WITH A REASONABLE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY THAT IT PAID AND THAT THE EMPLOYEE ACTUALL RECEIVED THE PAYMENT.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE RULE?
THE REASON FOR THE RULE IS THAT THE PERTINENT PERSONNEL FILES, PAYROLLS, RECORDS, REMITTANCES AND OTHER SIMILAR DOCUMENTS X X X ARE NOT IN THE POSSESSION OF THE WORKER BUT [ARE] IN THE CUSTODY AND ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF THE EMPLOYER.
TO READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE DECISION PLEASE DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 