Labor Law II: Due Process

King of Kings Transport, Inc. vs. Mamac

Petitioners: Respondents:
KING OF KINGS TRANSPORT, INC., CLAIRE SANTIAGO O. MAMAC
DELA FUENTE, and MELISSA LIM
Facts:
• Petitioner KKTI is a corporation engaged in public transportation and managed
by Claire Dela Fuente and Melissa Lim
• Respondent Mamac was hired as bus conductor of Don Mariano Transit
Corporation (DMTC)
• KKTI organized Kaisahan ng mga Kawani sa King of Kings (KKKK) and Mamac
was elected its president
• As president, he was required to accomplish a “Conductor’s Trip Report and
submit to the company after each trip, it indicates the ticket opening and
closing for each duty. The company audits and issues Irregularity Report in case
of irregularities. And the employee is asked to explain in a written statement or
counter-affidavit. After consideration, the company makes a determination on
what penalty to impose and such decision shall be furnished to the employee.
• Upon audit, KKT noted an irregularity and discovered that Mamac declared
several sold tickets as returned tickets causing loss to the company. Thus, he was
asked to explain the discrepancy.
• Mamac explained that the error was unintentional because on that day’s trip
the windshield was smashed and they had to cut the trip short, thus he got
confused in making the trip report.
• Mamac received a termination due to his act of fraud against the company.
• Mamac filed for illegal dismissal without due process
• KKTI contended that he was legally dismissed because he violated the trust and
confidence of KKTI
• CA held that he was dismissed with just cause, but failed to comply with
procedural due process, awarding full back wages from termination until finality
of decision, 13th month pay
Issue:
Whether KKTI complied with the due process of terminating Mamac (NO)

Ruling:

First, respondent was not issued a written notice charging him of committing an
infraction. The law is clear on the matter. A verbal appraisal of the charges against an
employee does not comply with the first notice requirement. In Pepsi Cola Bottling Co.
v. NLRC, the Court held that consultations or conferences are not a substitute for the
actual observance of notice and hearing. Also, in Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. v.
Mesano, the Court, sanctioning the employer for disregarding the due process
requirements, held that the employee’s written explanation did not excuse the fact
that there was a complete absence of the first notice.

Second, even assuming that petitioner KKTI was able to furnish respondent an
Irregularity Report notifying him of his offense, such would not comply with the
requirements of the law. We observe from the irregularity reports against respondent
for his other offenses that such contained merely a general description of the charges
against him. The reports did not even state a company rule or policy that the employee
had allegedly violated. Likewise, there is no mention of any of the grounds for
termination of employment under Art. 282 of the Labor Code. Thus, KKTI’s “standard”
charge sheet is not sufficient notice to the employee.

Third, no hearing was conducted. Regardless of respondent’s written explanation, a

hearing was still necessary in order for him to clarify and present evidence in support of
his defense. Moreover, respondent made the letter merely to explain the
circumstances relating to the irregularity in his October 28, 2001 Conductor’s Trip
Report. He was unaware that a dismissal proceeding was already being effected. Thus,
he was surprised to receive the November 26, 2001 termination letter indicating as
grounds, not only his October 28, 2001 infraction, but also his previous infractions.

However, the doctrine in Serrano had already been abandoned in Agabon v. NLRC
by ruling that if the dismissal is done without due process, the employer should
indemnify the employee with nominal damages.
Notes:
“SEC. 2. Standards of due process; requirements of notice.—In all cases of termination
of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially
observed:

I. For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article

282 of the Code:

a. A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or

grounds for termination, and giving said employee reasonable
opportunity within which to explain his side.
b. A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with
the assistance of counsel if he so desires is given opportunity to respond
to the charge, present his evidence, or rebut the evidence presented
against him.
c. A written notice of termination served on the employee, indicating that
upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been
established to justify his termination.

In case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be served on the employee’s last
known address.”

the following should be considered in terminating the services of employees:

(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 the 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, this 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.