Photo from Unsplash | Tim Gouw
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:
- An employee’s attitude problem is a valid ground for his termination.
- It is a situation analogous to loss of trust and confidence that must be duly proved by the employer.
- An employee who cannot get along with his co-employees is detrimental to the company. (Heavylift Manila Inc. v. The Court of Appeals and Ma. Dottie Galay, G.R. No. 154410, October 20, 2005)
On August 16, 1999, Galay was served a Notice of Termination due to loss of confidence. She filed for a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. The employer alleged that despite constant warning to improve, Galay’s attitude problem and failure to get along with co-employees resulted to the decline in the company’s efficiency and productivity.
For failure of the employer to prove that Galay violated any company regulation, the Labor Arbiter ruled that Galay was illegally terminated. The case was elevated to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) but the NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
The petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals was likewise dismissed due to procedural lapses. When the case finally reached the Supreme Court, among the issues presented was this: “Is attitude problem a valid ground for termination of an employee?” and “If in the affirmative, was this sufficiently proved?”
The Supreme Court ruled in this manner:
“An employee who cannot get along with his co-employees is detrimental to the company for he can upset and strain the working environment. Without the necessary teamwork and synergy, the organization cannot function well. Thus, management has the prerogative to take the necessary action to correct the situation and protect its organization. When personal differences between employees and management affect the work environment, the peace of the company is affected. Thus, an employee’s attitude problem is a valid ground for his termination. It is a situation analogous to loss of trust and confidence that must be duly proved by the employer. Similarly, compliance with the twin requirement of notice and hearing must also be proven by the employer.” (Emphasis supplied.)
However, it must be noted that for the case of Heavylift Manila, Inc., the Supreme Court decided that the employer failed to show through substantial evidence to justify Galay’s termination. The letter furnished by the employer to Galay on February 23, 1999 does not constitute the required notice under the law, as it failed to inform her of the specific acts complained of and their corresponding penalty.
Further, the law requires the employer to give the worker to be dismissed two written notices before terminating his employment, namely, (1) a notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him.
Additionally, the letter never afforded Galay an opportunity to explain herself, hence denying her due process. For this reason, Galay was illegally dismissed because the employer failed to show adequately that a valid cause for terminating Galay exists, and because the employer failed to comply with the twin requirement of notice and hearing.
The settled rule is that in termination proceedings of employees, procedural due process consists of the twin requirements of notice and hearing. The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the second informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him. (Jerry Almogera, Jr. v. A&L Fishpond And Hatchery, Inc., G.R. No. 247428, February 17, 2021)
It must be emphasized that a valid dismissal necessitates compliance with both substantive and procedural due process requirements. (Telephilippines, Inc. v. Fernando Jacolbe, G.R. No. 233999, February 18, 2019)
Read also: SC decides: Habitual tardiness and absenteeism constitute neglect of duty
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.