Case No. 14 Re: Procedural Due Process in Labor Law; Two-Notice (and One Hearing Rule).

 Re: Procedural Due Process in Labor Law; Two-Notice (and One Hearing Rule).

Case No. 14 GR No. 223665 2021-09-27

UNIVERSITY OF CORDILLERAS v. BENEDICTO F. LACANARIA HERNANDO, J.

To elaborate, King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac is instructive, viz.: 

Art. 277 of the Labor Code provides the manner of termination of employment, thus: 

Art. 277. Miscellaneous Provisions. -[...] 

(b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the 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 promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of Labor and Employment. 

Any decision taken by the employer shall be without prejudice to the right of the worker to contest the validity or legality of his dismissal by filing a complaint with the regional branch of the National Labor Relations Commission. 

The burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the employer.Accordingly, the implementing rule of the aforesaid provision states:

SEC. 2. Standards 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 [297] of the Code: 

(a) 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. 

(b) 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. 

(c) A written notice of termination served on the employee, indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, 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. To clarify, the following should be considered in terminating the services of employees:

(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 with 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. The Charge Sheet with Notice of Investigation charged Lacanaria with serious misconduct and a violation of the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers then enumerated the imposable penalties without however specifying which provisions were violated. 

Nonetheless, he was purportedly provided with a copy of Flores' Complaint and other documents which supplemented the details and reason for the charges. Relevantly, the Charge Sheet did not inform Lacanaria of the date, time and place of the hearing, even if the grievance procedure of the University requires it.

Nonetheless, it is settled that "actual hearing or conference is not a condition sine qua non for procedural due process in labor cases because the provisions of the Labor Code prevail over its implementing rules." 

To expound, CMP Federal Security Agency, Inc. v. Reyes, Sr. cites the Court En Banc's pronouncement in Maula, v. Ximex Delivery Express, Inc., as follows:

x x x The test for the fair procedure guaranteed under Article 277(b) cannot be whether there has been a formal pre-termination confrontation between the employer and the employee. The 'ample opportunity to be heard' standard is neither synonymous nor similar to a formal hearing.

To confine the employee's right to be heard to a solitary form narrows down that right. It deprives him of other equally effective forms of adducing evidence in his defense. Certainly, such an exclusivist and absolute interpretation is overly restrictive. The 'very nature of due process negates any concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situation. 

The standard for the healing requirement, ample opportunity, is couched in general language revealing the legislative intent to give some degree of flexibility or adaptability to meet the peculiarities of a given situation. To confine it to a single rigid proceeding such as a formal hearing will defeat its spirit. 

A hearing means that a party should be given a chance to adduce his evidence to support his side of the case and that the evidence should be taken into account in the adjudication of the controversy. 'To be heard' does not mean verbal argumentation alone inasmuch as one may be heard just as effectively through written explanations, submissions or pleadings. Therefore, while the phrase 'ample opportunity to be heard' may in fact include an actual hearing, it is not limited to a formal hearing only. In other words, the existence of an actual, formal 'trial-type' hearing, although preferred, is not absolutely necessary to satisfy the employee's right to be heard. 

In sum, the following are the guiding principles in connection with the hearing requirement in dismissal cases: 

(a) 'ample opportunity to be heard' means any meaningful opportunity (verbal or written) given to the employee to answer the charges against him and submit evidence in support of his defense, whether in hearing, conference or some other fair, just and reasonable way. 

(b) a formal hearing or conference becomes mandatory only when requested by the employee in writing or substantial evidentiary disputes exist or a company role or practice requires it, or when similar circumstances justify it. 

(c) the 'ample opportunity to be heard' standard in the Labor Code prevails over the 'hearing or conference' requirement in the implementing rules and regulations. 

In the case at bench, it may be said that Lacanaria was given the opportunity to be heard since he was able to file his Answer to Flores' Complaint as well as a Motion for Reconsideration on the decision terminating him from employment. Presumably, too, the Grievance Committee, although, it was only able to ask clarificatory questions from Flores (which is a logical consequence since Lacanaria was not able to attend the hearings), nonetheless considered the affidavits submitted by Flores and his classmates, and even Lacanaria's Answer. However, it should be emphasized that after receipt of the Notice of Decision (or Termination), Lacanaria filed a Motion for Reconsideration to ask for a reinvestigation (which is equivalent to a request for a hearing) so that he can present his side. This is considering that he was not able to attend the previous hearings as he was not duly informed of the schedule. 

While the April 7, 2010 hearing was meant for him to present his side, Lacanaria unfortunately belatedly received the notice and was not able to prepare or attend at all. Furthermore, the University's own grievance procedure provides that an investigation should be conducted anyway.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated March 18, 2016 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 124276 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Benedicto F. Lacanaria is DECLARED to have been dismissed for just cause but the petitioner University of the Cordilleras failed to observe the rudiments of procedural due process and is ordered pay respondent P30,000.00 as nominal damages, subject to the legal interest rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Decision until full payment.

Case No. 14 GR No. 223665 2021-09-27

UNIVERSITY OF CORDILLERAS v. BENEDICTO F. LACANARIA HERNANDO, J.

Cases penned by Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando PART 1 case no. 1 to 40 [FULLTEXT].pdf