Photo from Unsplash | Icons8 Team
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:
The Supreme Court, in the case of Allan John Uy Reyes v. Global Beer Below Zero, Inc., (G.R. No. 222816, October 04, 2017) ruled that verbal notice of termination can hardly be considered as valid or legal.
To constitute valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must concur:
(1) the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause; and
(2) the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.
(Allan John Uy Reyes v. Global Beer Below Zero, Inc., G.R. No. 222816, October 04, 2017)
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. The requirement of a hearing is complied with as long as there was an opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted.
The procedural due process standard to be observed in terminating the services of employees may be outlined as follows:
(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 within 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. (Jerry Almogera, Jr. v. A&L Fishpond and Hatchery, Inc., G.R. No. 247428, February 17, 2021)
In the case of Allan John Uy Reyes v. Global Beer Below Zero, Inc. (G.R. No. 222816, October 04, 2017), the Supreme Court made it clear that verbal notice of termination can hardly be considered as valid or legal.
Further, the Supreme Court reiterated the rule that to constitute valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must concur:
(1) the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause; and
(2) the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.
In this case, the Allan Reyes (the Complainant), was hired as Global Beer Below Zero, Inc. (the Respondent) on January 2009 as its Operations Manager. After several instances of tardiness, the employee was told by his immediate supervisor not to report for work anymore. The detailed facts of the case are as follows:
Petitioner Reyes was an employee of respondent Global as Operations Manager from January 2009 until January 2012.
On January 18, 2012, petitioner Reyes, in accordance with his duties, reported to the main office of respondent Global in Makati instead of going to the Pasig warehouse in order to request for budget because there was a scheduled delivery the following day. The following day, January 19, 2012, petitioner Reyes ran late because according to him, his three-year-old son was sick. Around 10:30 a.m. of the same day, respondent Global’s Vice-President for Operations, Vinson Co Say (Co Say), petitioner Reyes’ immediate and direct superior at that time, called petitioner Reyes and asked him why he was not yet at the office.
Petitioner Reyes apologized and said that he was on his way. According to petitioner Reyes, he tried to explain why he was late, but Co Say did not listen and the latter shouted at the other end of the line and told petitioner Reyes not to report for work anymore. Petitioner Reyes further claimed that Co Say angrily retorted that he will talk to him the following week before Co Say hung up the phone.
As instructed, petitioner did not report for work on the following days and waited for further instructions from Co Say. On January 24, 2012, petitioner Reyes received a text message from Co Say stating the following, “Allan, let’s meet thu, puno ako today, bukas.” Around 1:28 p.m. of January 26, 2012, petitioner Reyes received a text message from Co Say which says, “Allan, let’s meet in Starbucks Waltermart around 3:00.”
During the said meeting, Co Say told petitioner Reyes to no longer report for work and insisted that he file a resignation letter which petitioner Reyes refused to do because he believed that he had not done anything that would warrant his dismissal from the company.
Thus, petitioner Reyes instituted a complaint for constructive dismissal on February 22, 2012 and amended the same complaint on March 29, 2012, changing his cause of action to illegal dismissal.
Here, the complainant sufficiently alleged the surrounding circumstances of his dismissal. He was able to state, with the required particularities how he was terminated from his employment. He stated in detail that on January 19, 2012, he was not able to report for work early due to his son’s illness. He also alleged that respondent Co Say called him and angrily told him not to report for work anymore and that they will have to talk in a week’s time. During their meeting held at Starbucks Waltermart, the complainant was detailed enough when he recounted how respondent Co Say reiterated that he can no longer return to his job and even sought his resignation which he refused. While the allegations of the complainant may not be taken as gospel truths at this point, the complainant was able to establish that he was dismissed from his employment contrary to the denials of the respondents. Thus, it is now incumbent upon the respondents to prove that the complainant was validly dismissed from his job in the light of the detailed and straightforward narration of the complainant.
The issue is whether or not the complainant was validly dismissed from employment on account of verbal order of Respondent for complainant not to report for work anymore. Stated differently, is verbal termination a valid termination?
The Supreme Court ruled:
Verbal notice of termination can hardly be considered as valid or legal. To constitute valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must concur: (1) the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause; and (2) the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.
In the present case, the one who verbally directed petitioner to no longer report for work was his immediate or direct supervisor, the Vice-President for Operations, who has the capacity and authority to terminate petitioner’s services.
Co Say’s verbal instruction, being petitioner Reyes’ immediate supervisor, was authoritative, therefore, petitioner Reyes was not amiss in thinking that his employment has indeed already been terminated.
Related Articles:
Due Process in Labor Proceedings
Employer’s Non-Compliance with Procedural Due Process
Ensuring Due Process: What should the First Written Notice contain?
Ensuring Due Process: What should the Second Written Notice contain?
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.