Myline Cordial

Reynaldo Q. Agullano vs. Christian Publishing and Catalina Leonen Pizarro
G.R. No. 164850, September 25, 2008

FACTS: Petitioner was hired as printing manager of respondent, Christian Publishing, a single proprietorship engaged in the business of publishing books and printing in general. It is his responsibility to meet with prospective clients and to attend meetings of printing organizations. However, on March 30, 2000, he failed to attend a pre-bidding meeting at the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) over certain DECS projects to which respondent had pre-qualified. On the same day, petitioner also missed the general membership meeting of the Printing Industries Association of the Philippines (PIAP). He was asked through a memorandum to submit an explanation letter for his absences in these two important meetings.

On July 25, 2000, another memorandum was sent to him with regard to his absences and tardiness on several occasions. He was terminated the next day.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not employee was illegally dismissed.
2.Whether or not tardiness and absenteeism are a form of neglect of duty which is one of the just causes for termination of employment.

RULING: The Court held that the employer failed to comply with procedural due process in the termination of petitioner. It ordered to pay petitioner the sum of P30,000.00, by way of nominal damages, and the money equivalent of the five-day service incentive leave to which he is entitled.

An employee may only be dismissed for a just or valid cause provided by law, and only after due process is properly observed. Dismissals have two facets: first, the legality of the act of dismissal, which constitutes substantive due process; and, second, the legality of the manner of dismissal, which constitutes procedural due process.

Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties is one of the just causes for termination enumerated in Art. 282 of the Labor Code. Generally, tardiness and absenteeism, like abandonment, are a form of neglect of duty. Unexplained absences and tardiness constitute habitual and gross neglect of duties. As managerial employee who enjoys the trust and confidence of his employer, he is expected to adhere to company’s rules in an exemplary manner. There is a breach of trust that results in the employers loss of confidence in the employee.

Nevertheless, the employer failed to comply with the second requisite which is the procedural due process. Under the twin notice requirement, the employees must be given two (2) notices before their employment could be terminated: (1) a first notice to apprise the employees of their fault, and (2) a second notice to communicate to the employees that their employment is being terminated. In this case, there was no hearing or conference and the employer did not grant the petitioner an opportunity to answer the charges of absenteeism and tardiness. He was also served a notice of termination the next day, effective immediately.

NOTES:

Explanation of the procedure for this twin notice and hearing requirement: (King of Kings Transport v. Mamac, G.R. No. 166208, June 29, 2007, 526 SCRA 116, 125-126.)

(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 an 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, the 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.