Twin Notice Requirement in Dismissal of Employees

It is a cardinal rule in law that due process must always be observed. In labor cases,
employers have often lost cases because they have not complied with procedural due
process in the dismissal of their employees. In the case of San Antonio vs NLRC, et
al.[G.R. No. 100829. November 28, 1995.], the Supreme Court held that:
The rudiments of due process cannot be lightly ignored. Proper compliance with the
twin requirements of notice and hearing are conditions sine qua non before a dismissal
may be validly effected. Elucidating, the Court, in Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. NLRC,
(210 SCRA 277, 286) explained: The law requires that the employer must furnish the
worker sought to be dismissed with two (2) written notices before termination of
employment can be legally effected: (1) notice which apprises the employee of the
particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent
notice which informs the employee of the employers decision to dismiss him (Sec. 13,
BP 130; Sec. 2-6 Rule XIV, Book V, Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor
Code as amended). Failure to comply with the requirements taints the dismissal with
illegality. This procedure is mandatory; in the absence of which, any judgment reached
by management is void and inexistent. The second notice must be given the employee
after due hearing. The hearing requirement is not to be considered a mere technicality
but one of substance to which every employee is entitled in order to at all times assure
that the employers prerogative to dismiss or lay-off is not abused or exercised in an
arbitrary manner. Consultations and conferences may not be valid substitutes for actual
observance of notice and hearing. Any procedural shortcut, that effectively allows an
employer to assume the roles of both accuser and judge at the same time, should not
be countenanced. Not excluded from the rule are confidential and managerial
employees; they themselves cannot be arbitrarily dismissed without such just causes as
must be reasonably established in appropriate investigations. Shortly after petitioner, in
compliance with the companys directive, had explained why he should not be
disciplinary dealt, he received forthwith the companys decision dismissing him from
employment. No hearing, or a semblance thereof, was conducted apparently because
the company believed that the case was res ipsa loquitur in character.
The Supreme Court further elucidated the twin notice requirement in the case of Nitto
Enterprises vs NLRC [G.R. No. L-114337. September 29, 1995.], to wit:
There is an abundance of cases wherein the Court ruled that the twin requirements of
due process, substantive and procedural, must be complied with, before valid dismissal
exists. Without which, the dismissal becomes void.The twin requirements of notice and
hearing constitute the essential elements of due process. This simply means that the
employer shall afford the worker ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself
with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires. Ample opportunity connotes
every kind of assistance that management must accord the employee to enable him to
prepare adequately for his defense including legal representation.
As held in the case of Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Inc. v. NLRC:
The law requires that the employer must furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with
two (2) written notices before termination of employee can be legally effected: (1) notice
which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal
is sought, and (2) the subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employers
decision to dismiss him (Sec. 13, BP130, Sec. 2-6 Rule XIV, Book V, Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Labor Code as amended). Failure to comply with the
requirements taints the dismissal with illegality. This procedure is mandatory; in the
absence of which, any judgment reached by management is void and inexistent
(Tingson, Jr. vs. NLRC, 185 SCRA 498 [1990]; National Service Corp. vs. NLRC, 168
SCRA 122, Ruffy vs. NLRC. 182 SCRA 365 L [1990]).