Photo from Unsplash | Scott Graham
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 a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is 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.
AT A GLANCE:
There is substantial compliance with the first-written notice as long as the primordial purpose of the notice to explain has been complied with. (Musahamat Workers Labor Union-1-ALU vs. Musahamat Farms, Inc., G.R. No. 240184, July 6, 2022)
Due process of law simply means giving opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. In fact, there is no violation of due process even if no hearing was conducted, where the party was given a chance to explain his side of the controversy. What is frowned upon is the denial of the opportunity to be heard. (Felix Perez vs. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company, G.R. No. 152048, April 7, 2009)
There are times when strict adherence to the rules of procedure must yield to the search for truth and the demands of substantial justice. (Spouses Cordero vs. Leonila Octaviano, G.R. No. 241385, July 7, 2020)
Due process stands as a beacon, guiding the interactions between employers and employees. At its core lies the principle that fairness must prevail, particularly in cases of employment termination. Central to this principle is the first-written notice—an essential component that serves as the initial step in the termination process. While strict adherence to procedural rules is often emphasized, recent jurisprudence has shed light on the concept of substantial compliance, underscoring the primordial purpose of the notice to explain.
In Musahamat Workers Labor Union-1-ALU vs. Musahamat Farms, Inc., G.R. No. 240184, July 6, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that substantial compliance to Notice to Explain is sufficient as long as its primordial purpose has been complied with, to wit:
“Indeed, the Court instructs that 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. 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. Lastly, the notice should also specifically mention which company rules, if any, are violated and/or which among the grounds under the Labor Code is being charged against the employees.
However, it must be underscored that the primordial purpose of the first notice is to sufficiently apprise the employee of the acts complained of and to enable the employee to prepare his/her defense. Section 2, Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code from which the foregoing requisites are lifted expressly provides that they be “substantially” observed. Substantial, as opposed to strict, compliance should therefore suffice.”
Taking the case of Musahamat, the Supreme Court further held:
“The first notice of preventive suspension in this case substantially complies with the purpose of the first notice in cases of illegal dismissal.
Here, while lacking in particularity, the notice of preventive suspension has nonetheless served the primordial purpose of a first notice. It was not couched in general terms but, rather, clearly provided that the watchmen were being preventively suspended during the investigation relative to the chopping incident on February 15, 2016. The notice further stated or alluded to the reassignment made which preceded the incident and which only involved the herein watchmen. As such, there was hardly any room for confusion as to which the preventive suspension was about. Given the gravity of the act involved in this case, any reasonable employee would likewise easily grasp that his/her employment as a watchman was on the line.
Moreover, albeit not evidenced by a written notice, it is undisputed that two grievance meetings were thereafter conducted. The minutes show that the alleged involvement of the watchmen in the chopping incident was discussed therein. During the first grievance meeting, in particular, the management informed the watchmen about a lead from a witness implicating them to the chopping incident. The watchmen, in turn, demanded that the witness and other evidence against them be presented or bared. The management rejected the demand and opted to present their evidence in another venue, which eventually happened.
Verily, the watchmen were accorded the opportunity to be heard.”
In light of the foregoing, the primordial purpose of the first-written notice, as highlighted in the Musahamat case and supported by Section 2, Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, can be summarized as follows:
- Apprising the Employee: The notice serves to inform the employee of the specific causes or grounds for termination against them. This includes providing a detailed account of the alleged misconduct or infractions.
- Affording Opportunity for Response: It grants the employee an opportunity to submit their written explanation within a reasonable period. This ensures that the employee can present their side of the story and defend themselves against the allegations.
- Facilitating Preparation: The notice should contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that form the basis for the charges against the employee. This enables the employee to intelligently prepare their explanation and defenses, ensuring a fair and informed response.
- Clarifying Violations: Additionally, the notice should specify which company rules, if any, have been violated, or cite relevant grounds under the Labor Code that are being charged against the employee. This clarity helps the employee understand the nature of the accusations against them.
If the foregoing purposes are complied with, then even if there is no express Notice to Explain, the previous notice or correspondence given is considered substantially compliant with the first-written notice requirement under the law.
Related Article/s:
Ensuring Due Process: What Should the First Written Notice Contain?
Employer’s Non-Compliance with Procedural Due Process
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.