Ian Alfredo Magno IN a country oozing with literacy yet wanting in capital, it is no surprise when local demographics display an overwhelming statistics of workers over a handful of businesses. I could not help but segue very early in this article that in select countries, they educate their young to ultimately create jobs. In the Philippines, rather, generation after generation is sent to school, seemingly programmed to land in a job – somewhere, somehow, someday. Nothing is wrong with that (not quite obvious). There is dignity in labor after all.  In hindsight, however, haven’t you wondered what is causing this phenomenon? Is it necessity, convenience, a laid back perspective, or have we not yet outgrown that colonialist “slave mentality?” Then what does it take to turn this around? (Or should we?) Regardless, the answer is yours for the thinking. But that is not my point. Numbers don’t lie. A common and prevalent legal problem among Filipinos is usually workelated. And for any employee, the worst nightmare is a two-syllable jargon: “You’re fired!” Article 297 of the renumbered Labor Code of the Philippines provides the “Just Causes” for termination by the employer, to wit: Termination by employer. – An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
  1. a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
  2. b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
  3. c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
  4. 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
  5. e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
Is it possible to hold an employer liable for illegal dismissal despite the existence of just causes? Yes, for failure to observe due process--the twin notice requirement, for instance. In the case of HSBC vs. NLRC G.R. No. 156635, dated Jan. 11, 2016, the Supreme Court, elucidating the twin-notice requirement, explained: “Article 277(b) of the Labor Code mandates compliance with the twin-notice requirement in terminating an employee, viz.: ... (b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires.... In King of Kings Transport Inc. v. Mamac, we have laid down the contents of the notices to be served upon an employee prior to termination, as follows: (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.... ... (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.” Ultimately, the Supreme Court pronounced: “The failure by HSBC to strictly observe the twin-notice requirement resulted in the illegal dismissal.”   (Lawyer Ian Alfredo T. Magno is an associate at Atty. Francis U. Ku & Associates, and is deputy legal officer, at Philhealth. E-mail: ianalfredom@gmail.com)