Inadequate

For the valid dismissal of an employee both substantial and procedural due process must be observed. In the procedural due process the two notice requirement is essential. What is the purpose and contents of the first notice? This is answered in this case of Rina.

Rina was the head of the Treasury Sales Division of a bank (CNA) with the rank of assistant vice president and a monthly compensation of P60,000. In July 1993, CNA discovered that Rina and Dino, another bank employee, were instrumental in the withdrawal by bank depositors of its investments therein amounting to P120 million which were subsequently reinvested in another foreign bank using the facilities their family corporations (Global and Torrance), thus making money in the process.

So on August 23, 1993, CNA wrote Rina a letter charging her with “knowledge and involvement” in transactions which were “irregular or even fraudulent” and placing her under preventive suspension. Rina referred the matter to her lawyer who then asked for the factual and legal basis of such charge and to substantiate the same.

On September 13, 1993 CNA answered and mentioned “irregular transactions” involving Rina’s corporation Global and/or CNA with 12 bank clients which were named therein. CNA likewise directed Rina to explain in writing within 3 days why her services should not be terminated. She was also directed to appear in an administrative investigation set on September 21, 1993. In reply, Rina’s counsel asked for a bill of particular regarding the charges.

So on September 20, 1993, CNA wrote again stating that Rina and Dino using the facilities of the family corporations appear to have participated in the diversion of the bank clients’ funds from the bank to other companies where they made money in the process in violation of the bank’s conflict of interest rule.

Rina did not appear in the administrative investigation on September 21, 1993. Instead her lawyer sent a letter asking CNA’s counsel what bank clients’ funds were diverted and invested in other companies, the specific amounts involved and the manner by which and the date when such diversions were purportedly effected. In reply CNA’s counsel noted Rina’s failure to appear in the investigation and gave her up to September 23, 1993 to submit her written explanation. Rina did not submit.

So on September 27, 1993 CNA informed Rina of the results of their investigation and terminated her services due to serious misconduct, willful breach of trust and commission of crime against the bank.

On October 15, 1993, Rina filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC where CNA presented its witnesses detailing the illegal transactions committed. Was Rina’s dismissal for a just cause and in accordance with due process?

Rina was dismissed for a just cause but without the observance of procedural due process. Any employer seeking to dismiss a worker shall furnish the latter a written notice stating the particular acts or omissions constituting the grounds for dismissal. The purpose of this notice is to sufficiently apprise the employee of the acts complained of and enable him/her to prepare his/her defense.

In this case the letters of CNA sent on August 23, September 13, and 20, 1993 which can be considered as the first notice, did not identify the particular acts or omissions committed by Rina. The extent of her alleged knowledge and participation in the diversion of the bank’s clients’ funds, manner of diversion and amounts involved; the acts attributed to her that conflicted with the bank’s interest and the circumstances surrounding the alleged irregular transactions were not specified in the notices/letters. While the bank gave Rina an opportunity to deny the truth of the allegations in writing and participate in the administrative investigations, the fact remains that the charges were too general to enable her to intelligently and adequately prepare her defense.

The first notice informing the employee of the charges should neither be pro-forma nor vague. It should set out clearly what the employee is being held liable for. The employee should be given ample opportunity to be heard and not mere opportunity. Ample opportunity means the employee is specifically informed of the charges in order to give him/her an opportunity to refute such accusations leveled against them. Since the notice of the charges against Rina is inadequate, the dismissal could not be in accordance with due process. So CNA should pay Rina P30,000 as nominal damages (Genuino vs. NLRC et. al. G.R. 142732-33; Citibank N.A. etc. vs. NLRC and Genuino, G.R. 142753-54, December 4, 2007).

*     *     *

E-mail at: [email protected]