Validly dismissed without due process

Due process requires that before an employee could be dismissed, two notices should be sent to him; written notice apprising him of the charge or charges constituting the ground for dismissal, and written notice informing him of his dismissal. In the absence of any of this notice, will the dismissal be invalid? This is the question resolved in this case of Pilo.

Pilo was employed as a truck driver of a rice mill owned by Mr. Ng with a daily wage rate of P110.00. As truck driver he was tasked to haul palay from various points in Isabela and Cagayan and bring them to the rice mill. He also acted as personal driver of Ng’s family in their trips to Manila.

But the relationship between Ng and Pilo was not so smooth because of Pilo’s tendency to disobey reasonable orders of Ng. When he was ordered to deliver 600 bags of cement worth P60,000 to a hardware store, he delivered them to another individual, a certain Mr. Intengan who had not since then paid for the delivery. He also refused to serve as driver of Mr. Ng’s son when the latter needed a driver. Pilo’s acts of insubordination constrained Ng to hire another driver, Mike. But Pilo resented Ng’s acts even more. He became uncooperative, disrespectful and quarrelsome. Armed with a dagger, he fought with Mike causing injury to the latter and another employee who interfered in the fight and tried to pacify Pilo. Thus the following day, after giving Pilo ample opportunity to explain his side, Mr Ng notified him of his dismissal.

Pilo believed that his dismissal was illegal so he filed a filed a complaint before the labor arbiter. The labor arbiter however found that his dismissal was for valid causes i.e. willful disobedience to lawful orders of the employer and commission of a crime or offense against the employer’s duly authorized representative. This ruling was subsequently affirmed by the NLRC and then the Court of Appeals (CA) upon appeal by Pilo. The Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA were unanimous in finding that there were justifiable causes for the dismissal of Pilo for willful acts of disobedience when he delivered 600 bags of cement to Mr. Intengan instead of the hardware store without Ng’s knowledge or permission, and for fomenting a fight with a co-worker which constituted serious misconduct.

But Pilo still questioned these rulings. He claimed he was not afforded due process of law because prior to the termination letter, he was not furnished a written notice detailing the particular acts and/or omissions which he allegedly committed to warrant his dismissal. So he asked that Ng be directed to reinstate him and pay his money claims for overtime, 13th month and incentive pay.

Was Pilo correct?

No.

When the dismissal is effected for a just and valid cause, as in this case, the failure to observe procedural requirements does not invalidate nor nullify the dismissal of an employee. Pilo was given ample opportunity to explain his side. Even granting that there was no strict compliance with the two-notice requirement, such irregularity does not militate against the legality of the dismissal. Not all notice requirements are requirements of due process. Some are simply part of a procedure to be followed before a right granted to a party can be exercised. Others are simply an application of the Justinian precept, embodied in the Civil Code, to act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith towards one’s fellowmen. Such is the requirement of the Labor Code (Art.282-283). The consequence of the failure to live up to this precept is to make him liable for damages, not to render his act (dismissal or resignation as the case may be) void. Only the absence of a just cause for the termination of employment can make the dismissal of an employee illegal. The law, in protecting the rights of labor, authorized neither the oppression nor self destruction of the employer.

The measure of damages is the amount of wages the employee should have received were it not for the termination of his employment without the required notices. The procedural infirmity is remedied by ordering the payment to the employee his full back-wages from the time of his dismissal until the court finally rules that the dismissal has been for a valid cause. If warranted, nominal and moral damages may also be awarded. ( Rosario vs. Victory Rice Mill, G.R. 147572, February 19 2003. 397 SCRA, 760)