Ortiz V DHL Phil Corp G.R. No. 183399, March 20, 2017

ROGEL ORTIZ,
Petitioner vs DHL PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, ET AL.,

Respondents
G.R. No. 183399, March 20, 2017
Doctrine: Procedural due process consists of the twin requirements of notice and
hearing. The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before the
termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first apprises the employee of the
particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the second
informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. The requirement of a
hearing is complied with as long as there was an opportunity to be heard, and not
necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted. [New Puerto Commercial, et
al. v. Lopez, et al., 639 Phil. 437 (2010).]
Facts: The petitioner was hired by DHL Philippines Corporation (DHL) as

Courier/Driver at the Mactan Business Center in Cebu. He was later promoted to the
position of Customs Representative and occupied the said position until 1995 when he
was assigned at the Ramos Business Center (RBC). Thereafter, he held the position of
a Manifest Clerk up to the time of his termination. As a Manifest Clerk, the petitioner
was specifically tasked to prepare manifest documents of the cargo before the same is
forwarded to its destination. He was made to work from 11:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m.,
with one-hour meal break and a 15-minute coffee break. On ordinary days, he and the
other manifest clerks took charge of the office business from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
since their Branch Supervisor, Marivic Jubay (Jubay) leaves by 6:00 p.m.
At some time, a little past 7pm, his branch supervisor Jubay made a visit in their
workplace and discovered that petitioner was not there and nobody knew where he
was. She waited until 8:55 to punch out petitioner’s time card and later reprimanded
him and told him to exercise more diligence at work. On the following day, however,
the petitioner did not report for work. On another time, around 6pm, RBC Branch
Manager Tamondong looked for the petitioner but found out that he was not in the
workplace and his co-employees do not know his whereabouts. Tamondong then
asked the security guard to find out that petitioner went home to watch a PBA game.
This prompted Tamondong to order Jubay to investigate on the matter. On the next
day, Jubay found out that the petitioner punched out his time card at 8:46pm on the
previous day.
The petitioner received a memorandum from Jubay, directing him to explain why he
had left his post during office hours. Instead of showing repentance and admitting his
faults, he arrogantly hurled invectives at his supervisor in front of his co-employees.
On the following day, he submitted his written explanation, wherein he claimed that
he only took his 15-minute break since he has yet to avail of the same that day.
During the investigation, however, his officemates revealed that he had been regularly
leaving the office before his shift ends, just right after their supervisor leaves the office,
especially on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and whenever his brother-in-law, who plays
for a PBA team, has a scheduled game. In those days, he would call from his residence
and ask the security guard or his co-employee, Hubert Enad to punch out his time
card. Due to these allegations, Jubay elevated the matter for further investigation to
the Human Resources Manager for Visayas and Mindanao. The investigation
conducted only confirmed the fact that the petitioner had been leaving the office early
two to three times a week to practice basketball or watch PBA games. The security
guards likewise disclosed that this practice had been going on for almost two years
already. Upon learning that the security guards testified against him, he threatened to
retaliate by making them lose their employment and revoke their agency's license.
The petitioner was issued a notice of formal investigation to be conducted. The
petitioner apologized for his ill behavior in front of his supervisor and admitted to all
the charges against him. When he was informed that his infractions may warrant his
dismissal, he pleaded that he be imposed with suspension instead. He was, thus,
advised to write a letter to the management to appeal for a lesser penalty for his
infractions, which he submitted.
The management of DHL denied the petitioner's plea for a lesser penalty for his
infractions. The memorandum pointed out that the gravity of the infractions and the
fact that the same had been continuously committed for a period of two years amount
to grave dishonesty and serious misconduct which deserved no less than dismissal.
On June 4, 1999, the petitioner received a Notice of Dismissal.
Sometime thereafter, he filed a case for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal, with
claims for the payment of indemnity, damages and costs of suit against DHL and its
responsible officers. LA dismissed his complaint for lack of merit.
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed LA’s decision and awarded petitioner separation pay in
view of his long service to DHL. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was
denied.
He then filed a petition for certiorari to the CA and affirmed the NLRC’s decision that
the dismissal was with just cause but no separation pay is to be awarded. Instead,
DHL was ordered to pay nominal damages amounting to P30,000.
Issue/s: Whether or not the dismissal was valid and in accordance with the
procedural due process.
Held: Yes. The dismissal is was based on valid causes but the petitioner was not
accorded procedural due process.
Ratio: It is well settled that a valid dismissal necessitates compliance with substantive
and procedural requirements. Specifically, in Mantle Trading Services, Inc. and/or Del
Rosario v. NLRC, et al., the Court emphasized that (a) there should be just and valid
cause as provided under Article 282 of the Labor Code, and (b) the employee be
afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.
After a careful examination of the facts and the records of this case, the Court finds
that the petitioner's dismissal was founded on acts constituting serious misconduct
and grave dishonesty which are grounds for a valid dismissal. In particular, he
repeatedly committed the following serious violations of company policies, to wit:
1) Grave dishonesty and fraud by allowing/asking someone to punch out your
timecard for a period of two years[;]
2) Deliberate disregard/disobedience of company rule by frequently leaving work area
prior to scheduled dismissal time without permission[;]
3) Disrespect to immediate superior by uttering offensive and lewd remarks and[/]or
misbehavior during confrontation last March 25, 1999[; and]
4) Threatening the two security guards on duty last April 9, 1999 and warning them
against testifying about violations incurred which constitute an offense against
persons
The Court also agrees with the CA that the petitioner was not afforded procedural due
process in the process of his termination.
In King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac, the twin requirements of notice and hearing
were further clarified, thus:
(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.
None of the three notices satisfied the requirements of the law. In the first notice, the
allegations against the petitioner were vague and did not make any reference to the
company policy violated by the latter nor to any of the grounds for termination in
Article 282 of the Labor Code. Apart from this, the notice did not give the petitioner a
reasonable opportunity to prepare his explanation as he was only given practically a
day or 24 hours to respond to the same.
In the same way, the second notice lacked the particularity required by the law. It
does not contain a detailed narration of the incidents being alluded to, leaving the
petitioner guessing on the particulars of the charges against him. The general
description of the charges is not a sufficient compliance with the law.
The same can be said of the third notice as it is completely wanting of the essential
details required of a proper notice. There were no details of the charges against the
accused, the notice merely stating that the formal investigation concerns the "offenses
for which the petitioner is currently being investigated." What these offenses are,
however, can hardly be gathered with particularity from the two earlier notices given to
the petitioner. It is even doubtful whether this notice was ever given to the petitioner
at all since the copy of the same submitted in evidence by DHL contained a notation,
"REFUSED TO SIGN (6/30/99)", thereby giving the impression that the petitioner was
supposedly served a copy of the notice but refused to sign on June 30, 1999, while the
formal investigation was held on May 4, 1999.
Undoubtedly, there was a considerable lapse by DHL in observing the procedural due
process requirements of the law in terminating employment. In such a case, the ruling
in Agabon v. NLRC is instructive. It was held that in cases involving dismissals for
cause but without observance of the twin requirements of notice and hearing, the
validity of the dismissal shall be upheld but the employer shall be ordered to pay
nominal damages in the amount of ₱30,000.00.

Ortiz V DHL Phil Corp G.R. No. 183399, March 20, 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ortiz V DHL Phil Corp G.R. No. 183399, March 20, 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROGEL ORTIZ,

Petitioner vs DHL PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, ET AL.,

Facts: The petitioner was hired by DHL Philippines Corporation (DHL) as

You might also like