You are on page 1of 3

Due Process Requirement

1. Procedural due process requires that the employee be given a notice of the charge
against him, an ample opportunity to be heard, and a notice of termination. Even if
the aforesaid procedure is conducted after the filing of the illegal dismissal case, the
legality of the dismissal, as to its procedural aspect, will be upheld provided that the
employer is able to show that compliance with these requirements was not a mere
afterthought. [New Puerto Commercial vs. Lopez, 625 SCRA 422(2010)]
2. In order to validly dismiss an employee, he must be accorded both substantive and
procedural due process by the employer. Procedural due process requires that the
employee be given a notice of the charge against him, an ample opportunity to be
heard, and a notice of termination. Even if the aforesaid procedure is conducted
after the filing of the illegal dismissal case, the legality of the dismissal, as to its
procedural aspect, will be upheld provided that the employer is able to show that
compliance with these requirements was not a mere afterthought. [New Puerto
Commercial vs. Lopez, 625 SCRA 422(2010)]
3. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, a formal or trialtype hearing is not essential as the due process requirement is satisfied where the
parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side. [Areno,
Jr. vs. Skycable PCC-Baguio, 611 SCRA 721(2010)]
4. We have consistently upheld in the past as valid although irregular the dismissal of
an employee for a just or authorized cause but without notice and have imposed a
sanction on the erring employers in the form of damages for their failure to comply
with the notice requirement. [Serrano vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, 323 SCRA 445(2000)]
5. Neither can there be any denial of due process due to the absence of a hearing or
investigation at the company level. It has been held in a plethora of cases that due
process requirement is met when there is simply an opportunity to be heard and to
explain ones side even if no hearing is conducted. In the case of Perez v. Philippine
Telegraph and Telephone Company, 584 SCRA 110 (2009), this Court pronounced
that an employee may be afforded ample opportunity to be heard by means of any
method, verbal or written, whether in a hearing, conference or some other fair, just
and reasonable way. [Reyes-Royel vs. Philippine Luen Thai Holding,
Corporation, 676 SCRA 183(2012)]
6. Procedural due process is simply defined as giving an opportunity to be heard
before judgment is rendered. The twin requirements of notice and hearing
constitute the essential elements of due process, and neither of those elements can
be eliminated without running afoul of the constitutional guaranty. The employer
must furnish the employee two written notices before termination may be effected.
The first notice apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which
his dismissal is sought, while the second notice informs the employee of the

employers decision to dismiss him. [Tirazona vs. Court of Appeals, 548 SCRA
560(2008)]
7. This Court has held that there is no violation of due process even if no hearing was
conducted, where the party was given a chance to explain his side of the
controversy. What is frowned upon is the denial of the opportunity to be heard.
Tirazona in this case, has been afforded a number of opportunities to defend her
actions. [Tirazona vs. Court of Appeals, 548 SCRA 560(2008)]
8. Neither Section 2 of Book V of Rule XXIII nor Section 2(d) of Rule 1 of Book VI of the
Implementing Rules requires strict literal compliance with the stated procedure; only
substantial compliance is needed.
On this basis, the Memoranda sent to respondents may be deemed to have
sufficiently conformed to the first notice required under the Implementing Rules.
The Memoranda served the purpose of informing them of the pending matters
beclouding their employment and of extending to them an opportunity to clear the
air. In fact, not only were respondents duly informed of the particular acts for which
their dismissal was sought; they were, in truth and in fact, able to defend
themselves and to respond to the charges with the assistance of a counsel of their
own choosing. [Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc. vs. Nagkakaisang
Empleyado ng Wellcome-DFA (NEW-DFA), 453 SCRA 256(2005)]
Finding of Labor Arbiter and NLRC:
1. Appellate courts accord the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC not
only respect but also finality when supported by substantial evidence. The Court
does not substitute its own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where
the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible. It is not for the Court to reexamine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of the witnesses nor
substitute the findings of fact of an administrative tribunal which has gained
expertise in its specialized field. [New Puerto Commercial vs. Lopez, 625 SCRA
422(2010)]
2. Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are
generally accorded not only respect but even finality if such findings are supported
by substantial evidence. [PCI Automation Center, Inc. vs. National Labor
Relations Commission , 252 SCRA 725 ()]
3. Time and again we have held that the findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like
the NLRC and of the Labor Arbiter are accorded with respect, even finality, if
supported by substantial evidence. [Cruz vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Phils., Inc., p.
340. [, 460 SCRA 65]
4. Judicial Review of labor cases does not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency
of the evidence upon which its labor officials findings restthe findings of facts and
conclusion of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) are generally

accorded not only great weight and respect but even clothed with finality and
deemed binding on the Supreme Court as long as they are supported by substantial
evidence.[Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. vs. Chua, p. 600. [, 550 SCRA 731]
5. Findings of the Labor Arbiter, when affirmed by the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals, are binding on the Supreme Court,
unless patently erroneous. [Aliling vs. Feliciano, 671 SCRA 186(2012)]