From: MANAGEMENT FEBRUARY 12, 2021

Disciplinary Board
LEBSYS Co.

To: Jovy Gomez (Leadman), Robert Javierto (Laborer), John Mark Abrenica (Carpenter), Nelson Abrenica
(Carpenter), Vincent Ompad (Labor), Jonifer Pogoso (Carpenter), Michael Pogoso (Carpenter).

RE: JOINT NOTICE TO EXPLAIN WITH 30 Days PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Maintenance of discipline is primarily a function of the immediate supervisor. The Immediate Supervisor is
responsible in instilling a healthy and harmonious working environment that encourages and maintains a high level
of self-solving approach together with the employee. However, in certain instances, major infractions of company
procedures, rules and regulations are committed that would warrant the imposition of graver corrective action.

Dear Mr. Jovy Gomez Et.Al:

We are writing this letter pertinent to your various violations of the Company Code of Conduct,
Memorandum Circulars and the Labor Code of the Philippines specifically under Article 282 of the said
code Habitual Insubordination, Serious and habitual Misconduct, Ineffecient, Tardiness and
Absenteeism.

Simula nung nagging project employees kayo nang kompanya ay napansin ng inyong mga managers,
engineers and superiors and inyong di pagrespeto at pagsunod sa inyong mga superior and managers.
Pangalawa hindi kayo nagpapaalam nang maayos at walang sapat na eksplanasyon or valid reasons sa
inyong palaging pagliban sa trabaho na sobrang nakaapekto sa operasyon ng kompanya.

Kayo din ay iniiwan ang inyong trabaho na walang paalam sa inyong mga superiors at managers at
mahigpit na ibinilin sa inyo na wag basta aalis sa barracks nang walang pahintulot at matibay na dahilan
upang maiwasan ang COVID-19 exposure ngunit ito ay inyong nilabag nang lubusan. Sobra din ang
inyong di pagrespeto sa bawat managers and superiors ninyo higit sa lahat ang mga ganitong pag uugali
ay maituturing na mabigat na rason upang kayo ay tanggalin sa trabaho. ANG KOMPANYA AY HINDI
NAGKULANG SA PAGPAPAALALA SA INYO SA BAWAL AT KAILANGAN NINYONG SUNDIN.
SEVERAL VERBAL NOTICE WAS ALSO GIVEN TO YOU BUT FAILED ON YOUR PART TO OBEY
SUCH NOTICE.

Our Supreme Court already ruled that Serious Dishonesty is one of the valid grounds to dismiss the
employee’s employment in the company.

- Acts of Dishonest

a. Concept.
Constitute of an act of dishonesty may constitute either of the following grounds combination
thereof, depending on the peculiar environmental circumstances of each case;

1. Serious misconduct under Article 282 of the Labor Code [a]; or

2. Fraud under Article 282 [c]; or
3. Wilful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized
representative under Article 282 [c]; or
 4. Specific offenses prescribed under the company Rules and Regulations or Code of Discipline
involving dishonesty which may be legally cited as applicable grounds, in addition to the afore-
said grounds under Article 282.

A charge of dishonesty, however, must be substantiated to merit the dismissal of the employee. If
after a review of the records, it is established that the employee is not guilty of dishonesty then he should
not be dismissed from the service (Shangri-la Hotel vs. Dialogo G.R. No. 141900, April 20, 2001). (Emphasis
Supplied)

This is so because dishonesty is a serious charge, which the employer must adequately prove, especially
when it is the basis for termination. (Janssen Pharmaceutica vs. Silayro, G.R. No. 172528, February 26, 2008).
(Emphasis Supplied)

- Tardiness and Absenteeism

 [MANSION PRINTING CENTER and CLEMENT CHENG vs. DIOSDADO BITARA, JR. G.R. No.
168120, Jan 25, 2012] to wit:

He was the only driver of the business and his tardiness and absenteeism delayed deliveries and the
pick-up of supplies. He was warned several times and even met with management to discuss his
timekeeping issues. He was eventually terminated and filed for illegal dismissal. The Supreme
Court classified his tardiness and absences as habitual and upheld his dismissal. Note that the
sole proprietorship in this case followed due process and did as much as they could to try to come
to an agreement with him, but the employee was steadfastly adamant in his behavior. (Emphasis
Supplied)

 In Japos vs. FarmCoop [G.R. 208000, Jul 26, 2017], the Court upheld the termination as the
employee had been absent on 6 different occasions and had been issued several written
warnings. The Court favorably looked at the fact that the company had followed due process.
Termination for absenteeism is very clear in this case. Make sure that you have a good employee
policy in place, that your documentation is in order and that you are following due process.
(Emphasis Supplied)

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 representatives; and 
e. Other causes analogous to the foregoing. (Emphasis Supplied)

In view of the foregoing, here are the additional following grounds for this Notice with the interpretation
of the Honorable Supreme Court:

 SERIOUS MISCONDUCT

“MISCONDUCT” has been defined as improper or wrongful conduct, It is the transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, wilful in character, and implies
wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment, (PLDT vs. Bolso, G.R. No. 159701, August 17, 2007)

a. Requisites- for misconduct or improper behaviour to be a just cause for dismissal, the following requisites
must concur:
 1. It must be serious;
2. It must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and
3. It must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.
(Roquero vs. Philippines Air Lines., G.R. No. 152329; April 22, 2003).

 INSUBORDINATION OR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF LAWFUL ORDERS

It is the duty of the employee to obey all reasonable rules, and instructions of the employer, and
wilful or intentional disobedience thereto, as a general rule, justifies recission of the contract of
service and the peremptory dismissal of the employee. (Malabago vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 165465,
September 13, 2006).

Ergo, please submit your written explanation to the DISCIPLINARY BOARD being charged against
you described or narrated above within THREE (3) Calendar Days from the date this Notice was served
upon you. Failure to comply will be considered as waiving on your rights to be heard and we will be
decided base on the facts and evidence presented against you.

Lastly, you are preventively suspended for THIRTY (30) Calendar Days from the date this Notice
was served upon you.

In the event that you are found guilty of the said charge(s), the company may terminate you from
employment and/or impose other appropriate penalties.

This Notice consists of three 3 pages, plus attachments.

Kindly give this matter your priority attention.

Signed and Issued By: Noted By:

Engr. JOSEPH E. SALVADOR Engr. HAROLD VIBAL

PIC- LEBSYS CO. PROJECT MANAGER- LEBSYS CO.

Received By:

Jovy Gomez Nelson Abrenica

Date & Time: ______________ Date & Time: ______________

Robert Javierto Vincent Ompad

Date & Time: ______________ Date & Time: ______________

John Mark Abrenica Jonifer Pogoso

Date & Time: ______________ Date & Time: ______________

Michael Pogoso
Date & Time: ______________