Published — July 4, 2022
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of your own lawyer to address your legal concerns, if any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
After reading “May an employee question the legality of his/her dismissal?”, read also “Who has the power to suspend the effects of termination of employment?”
-
An employee may contest the validity or the legality of his/her dismissal.
-
He/she may do so by filing a complaint for illegal dismissal.
-
Such complaint for illegal dismissal shall be filed with the Regional Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission.
The law says:
Article 294 of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides that:
ARTICLE 294. Security of tenure. – In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
Book VI (Post-Employment) Rule XIV Section 1 of the Omnibus Rules to Implement the Labor Code provides that:
SECTION 1. Security of tenure and due process. — No workers shall be dismissed except for a just or authorized cause provided by law and after due process.
Section 7 of the same rule further provides that:
SECTION 7. Right to contest dismissal. — 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 Commission.
Jurisprudence says:
In the case of Agusan Del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al. v. Cagampang, et al. (G.R. NO. 16762, October 10, 2008), the Supreme Court held that:
“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. The employer’s case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the employee’s defense. 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. Moreover, the quantum of proof required in determining the legality of an employee’s dismissal is only substantial evidence. 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.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In the case of Brown Madonna Press, Inc. v. Casas (G.R. No. 200898, June 15, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that two separate inquiries must be made in resolving illegal dismissal cases. These are 1) whether the dismissal had been made in accordance with the procedure set in the Labor Code; and 2) whether the dismissal had been for just or authorized cause. To wit:
“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.
The violation of either the substantial due process right or the procedural due process right of an employee produces different results. 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.
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.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Can the Supreme Court determine the validity or legality of an employee’s dismissal?
No, the Supreme Court cannot pass upon the question of legality or illegality of an employee’s dismissal. Justice Leonen in his concurring opinion in the case of Del Rosario et. al. v. ABS CBN Broadcasting Corporation ruled that:
“A Rule 45 petition in a labor case is limited to determining whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion. We do not resolve questions of fact. This Court is not equipped to scrutinize the voluminous records of these cases to determine whether the evidence presented by each worker-claimant substantially proves their claim for regularity of employment, and subsequently, the illegality of their dismissal, based on the guidelines laid down here.”
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
[email-subscribers-form id=”4″]