RULE

It is a cardinal rule in law that due process must always be observed. In labor cases,
employers have often lost cases because they have not complied with procedural due process in
the dismissal of their employees.

The twin requirements of NOTICE and HEARING constitute the essential elements of the
procedural due process and neither of these elements can be eliminated without running afoul of
the procedural mandate.

Article 282 of the Labor Code states that:

(i) 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.

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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.1

The law requires that the employer must furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with
two (2) written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected: (1) 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 employers decision to dismiss
him.2

Failure to comply with the requirements taints the dismissal with illegality. This
procedure is mandatory; in the absence of which, any judgment reached by management is void
and inexistent.3 The second notice must be given the employee after due hearing. The hearing
requirement is not to be considered a mere technicality but one of substance to which every
employee is entitled in order to at all times assure that the employers prerogative to dismiss or
lay-off is not abused or exercised in an arbitrary manner.4

The twin requirements of due process, substantive and procedural, must be complied
with, before valid dismissal exists. Without which, the dismissal becomes void. The twin
requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process. This simply
means that the employer shall afford the worker ample opportunity to be heard and to defend
himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires. Ample opportunity connotes
every kind of assistance that management must accord the employee to enable him to prepare
adequately for his defense including legal representation.5

1 Sec. 13, BP 130; Sec. 2-6 Rule XIV, Book V, Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code as amended.

2 Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Inc. v. NLRC G.R. No. 127529, December 10, 1998

3 Tingson, Jr. v. NLRC, 185 SCRA 498 [1990]

4 Liberato San Antonio v. NLRC, G.R. No. 100829, November 28, 1995
ART. 282. TERMINATION BY EMPLOYER. An employer may terminate an employment for
any of the following causes:

(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his
employer or representative in connection with his work;

(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
authorized representative;

(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any
immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and

(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.6

Article 282(c) of the Labor Code prescribes two separate and distinct grounds for
termination of employment, namely: (1) fraud or (2) willful breach by the employee of the trust
reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative.

The first requisite for dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence is that the
employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence. The second requisite is
that there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. Loss of trust and
confidence, to be a valid cause for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust and
founded on clearly established facts. The basis for the dismissal must be clearly and convincingly
established but proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary.7

It is noteworthy to mention that there are two classes of positions of trust: on the one hand, there are
managerial employees whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in
which they are employed or of a department or a subdivision thereof, and to other officers or
members of the managerial staff; on the other hand, there are fiduciary rank-and-file employees,
such as cashiers, auditors, property custodians, or those who, in the normal exercise of their
functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property. These employees, though rank-
and-file, are routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer's money or property, and
are thus classified as occupying positions of trust and confidence. Episcope belongs to this latter
class and therefore, occupies a position of trust and confidence.8

Article 279 of the Labor Code which guarantee right to tenure provides that in case 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

5 Nitto Enterprises v. NLRC [G.R. No. L-114337, September 29, 1995

6 Article 282, Labor Code of the Philippines

7 Sanden Aircon Philippines v. Rosales G.R. No. 169260, March 23, 2011

8 Philippine Plaza Holdings v. Episcope, G.R. 192826, February 27, 2013

shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to his back wages computed
from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his reinstatement.9

Art. 286. Grave Coercion. The penalty of prision correccional and a fine not exceeding
Six thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without any authority of law, shall,
by means of violence, threats or intimidation, prevent another from doing something not
prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong.

"If the coercion be committed in violation of the exercise of the right of suffrage, or for
the purpose of compelling another to perform any religious act, to prevent him from exercising
such right or from so doing such act, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed."10

Supreme Court provided that for grave coercion to lie, the following elements must be present:

1. that a person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited

by law, or compelled to do something against his will, be it right or wrong;
2. That the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, threats or
intimidation; and
3. that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to
do so, or in other words, that the restraint is not made under authority of law
or in the exercise of any lawful right.

In the crime of grave coercion, violence through material force or such a display of it as
would produce intimidation and, consequently, control over the will of the offended party is an
essential ingredient. 11

9 The Labor Code of the Philippines, Book VI, Article 279.

10 Revised Penal Code, Article 286.

11 Alejandro v. Atty. Bernas, G.R. 179243, September 7, 2011.