ENCHANTED KINGDOM, INC., vs. MIGUEL J.

VERZO – Security of Tenure of Probationary Employees

FACTS:

- Verzo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, damages and attorney’s fees before the LA against
Enchanted Kingdom.

POSITION OF ENCHANTED KINGDOM:

- Verzo was hired by Enchanted to work as Section Head-Mechanical & Instrumentation

Maintenance for its theme park in Sta. Rosa City, Laguna, for a period of six (6) months on
probationary status.
- He was tasked to conduct:
o Mechanical and structural system assessments
o Inspect and evaluate the conditions, operations and maintenance requirements of rides,
facilities and buildings to ensure compliance with applicable codes, regulations and
standards.
o He was also provided with a detailed list of responsibilities that he should fulfill.
- During the probationary period, Enchanted assessed Verzo’s performance as not up to par.
o Schoefield one of Verzos fellow section heads, made his recommendation Velesrubio,
Verzos immediate supervisor, that he should not be considered for regularization.
o Schoefield noted the following:
 Verzo failed to take action to replace the faucets in the lavatories
 he mishandled the operation of the park’s submersible pump, which resulted in
the overflow of the sludge
 he once reported that the ZORB Ball pond had sufficient water for its operation,
but the following day, one of EnchantedÊs patrons got injured due to the ponds
low water level
 he often used company time browsing the internet for his personal use
o Schoefield’s evaluation was shared by another section head, Jun Montemayor In his
memorandum, addressed to Velesrubio, Montemayor made the following observations:
 Verzo’s performance was more of a “rank and file” rather than that of a Section
Head.
 He had no initiative or even if he was called for certain activities, project or work,
he would disappear or would not involve himself at all
 he was observed using company computers during office hours, searching for
motorcycle models and clubs
 He was very slow in making decisions or very slow to act resulting in delayed
results or no results at all
 Punctuality was also a concern
 He was afraid of giving orders/instruction to his subordinates
o Velesrubio agreed with the observations of Schoefield and Montemayor that Verzo was
lax in the performance of his duties.
  In his memorandum addressed to Nympha C. Maduli (Maduli), head of
Enchanted’s Human Resources Department, Velesrubio reported that:
 Verzo failed to check a problem with a lift for several days despite earlier
instructions
 in another attraction, Verzo did not immediately comply with his
instructions to check and repair a malfunctioning water pump for several
weeks
 Velesrubio instructed Verzo to check the expansion valve of the air-
conditioning unit in one of the attractions. He was surprised, however, to
find out that Verzo was unaware that the air-conditioning unit had an
expansion valve
- Taking all these into consideration, Enchanted furnished Verzo a copy of the Cast Member
Performance Appraisal for Regularization which reported that he only obtained a score of 70 out
of 100.
o Aside from indicating the numerical score, Enchanteds evaluation of his performance
contained the following notations under Supervisors Over-All Assessment:
 Lacking in supervisory skill;
 Incompetent technically;
 Lacking in initiative/sense of responsibility
- Enchanted formally informed Verzo that he did not qualify for regularization because his work
performance for the past five (5) months did not meet the requirements of the position of Section
Head for Mechanical and Instrumentation Maintenance.

POSITION OF VERZO:

- Verzo claimed that it was only after he was formally hired by Enchanted that he was informed of
his probationary status. And even after despite being placed on a probationary status, he was not
advised as to the standards required for his regularization.
- Verzo believed that he performed his job well
o he always punctual and regular in his attendance
o he was also respectful of his superiors
o he maintained a good working relationship with his subordinates
- For Verzo, the controversy began on January 5, 2010, when Schoefield approached and told him
that Enchanted had decided not to continue with his employment.
o While Velesrubio confirmed the news relayed by Schoefield, herefused to provide any
explanation therefor. Instead, Velesrubio advised him to resign so that he could be
provided with a certificate of employment that he could use in the future.
- Verzo asked Velesrubio several times to explain why he could not be considered for regularization,
but to no avail
- Verzo then approached Federico Juliano (Juliano), EnchantedÊs Executive Vice President for
operations
 o Juliano did not give any explanation why Enchanted would not consider him for
regularization and only advised him to just resign
- It was only after Verzo submitted a letter to Velesrubio that the latter called for a meeting on that
same day. Instead of discussing the reason why he could not be regularized, however, Velesrubio,
together with Schoefield and Montemayor, proceeded to accuse him of imagined transgressions.
- he was not given the chance to explain his side either
- Verzo went to the office of Maduli to receive his performance appraisal. He was again advised to
just resign in exchange for a certificate of employment.
- Verzo then asked for time to answer the allegations in writing
o Before he was able to submit his written reply to the allegations hurled against him, Verzo
received a letter informing him that he was being terminated for his failure to qualify for
regularization.

RULING OF THE LA

- LA rendered its decision dismissing Verzos complaint for lack of merit

o his status being probationary, his employment was only temporary and, thus, could be
terminated at any time
o termination was made before the end of the six-month probationary period
o Enchanted was well within its rights to sever the employer-employee relationship with
Verzo

RULING OF THE NLRC

- NLRC issued a resolution denying Verzos appeal for lack of merit.

o his contention that he was not furnished or shown a probationary contract so that he
could have been advised of the standards for regularization was belied by the fact that
hehimself attached to his position paper his signed contract of employment informing
him of his probationary status and the job description of his position.
o Verzo’s position as SH-MIM was not highly technical as to require that his contract with
Enchanted specify the reasonable standards for regularization.
o Verzo was rightfully severed from his employment, the NLRC took into consideration the
Cast Member Performance Appraisal for Regularization which showed that he failed to
meet the qualifications or requirements
o Enchanted acted within its rights when it dismissed him, considering that his inability to
perform his job concerned the very safety and security of EnchantedÊs patrons

RULING OF THE CA:

- The CA reversed the findings of the NLRC and the LA.

o Probationary contract between the parties failed to set the standards that would gauge
Verzos fitness and qualification for regular employment.
o Even if Verzo was considered a probationary employee, his termination was tainted with
bad faith.
 o Enchanteds dismissal of Verzo was arbitrary

ISSUE: DID THE DISMISSAL OF VERZO VIOLATE HIS SECURITY OF TENURE AS A PROBATIONARY
EMPLOYESS?

RULING: NO.

- A probationary employee is one who, for a given period of time, is being observed and evaluated
to determine whether or not he is qualified for permanent employment.
o It affords the employer an opportunity to observe the skill, competence and attitude of a
probationer.
o While the employer observes the fitness, propriety and efficiency of a probationer, to
ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent employment, the probationer, at the
same time, seeks to prove to the employer that he has the qualifications to meet the
reasonable standards for permanent employment.
- A probationary employee, like a regular employee, enjoys security of tenure.
o Aside from just or authorized causes of termination, under Article 281 of the Labor Code,
the probationary employee may also be terminated for failure to qualify as a regular
employee in accordance with the reasonable standards made known by the employer
at the time of the engagement.
o In summary, a probationary employee may be terminated for any of the following:
 (a) a just cause
 (b) an authorized cause
 (c) when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the
reasonable standards prescribed by the employer
o General Rule: Section 6(d), Rule I, Book VI of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code
provides that if the employer fails to inform the probationary employee of the
reasonable standards on which his regularization would be based at the time of the
engagement, then the said employee shall be deemed a regular employee
 In Abbott Laboratories v. Alcaraz
 The employer is made to comply with two (2) requirements:
o first, the employer must communicate the regularization
standards to the probationary employee; and
o Second, the employer must make such communication at the
time of the probationary employee’s engagement.
 An exception to the foregoing rule is when the job is self-descriptive.
 In Aberdeen Court, Inc. v. Agustin, Jr
o It has been held that the rule on notifying a probationary
employee of the standards of regularization should not be used
to exculpate an employee who acted in a manner contrary to
 basic knowledge and common sense in regard to which there
was no need to spell out a policy or standard to be met.
 an employee’s failure to perform the duties and responsibilities which
had been clearly made known to him would constitute a justifiable basis
for a probationary employees non-regularization.

APPLICATION:

- In the case at bench

o Evidence is clear that when Verzo was first hired by Enchanted, he was placed on a
probationary status.
 The letter, dated August 26, 2009, clearly reflects not only the agreement of both
parties as to the probationary status of the employment and its duration, but also
the fact that Enchanted informed Verzo of the standards for his regularization.
 Clearly, Enchanted informed Verzo that he was being placed on probation.
 Aside from the probationary nature of his employment, the agreement of the
parties specifically showed:
 the duration of such status;
 the benefits to which he was entitled once regularized;
 and most importantly, the standard with which he must comply in order
to be regularized.
 A detailed enumeration of his specific duties accompanied this letter of
employment to ensure that he was made aware and informed of his duties and
responsibilities.
o Verzo makes much noise of the fact that the letter was not served upon him immediately
at the very start of his employment.
 However, Enchanted was able to substantially comply with the requirement of
the law in apprising him of the standards for his regularization.
 the purpose of the law in requiring that an employee be notified of the
standards for his regularization during his probationary employment is to
simply afford him due process
 while it may be argued that ideally employers should immediately inform
a probationary employee of the standards for his regularization from day
one, strict compliance thereof is not required.
o The true test of compliance with the requirements of the law is,
of course, one of reasonableness
 As long as the probationary employee is given a
reasonable time and opportunity to be made fully
aware of what is expected of him during the early
phases of the probationary period, the requirement of
the law has been satisfied.
  It was only a total of only fourteen (14) days had just lapsed when Verzo
officially received the letter stating that he was still a probationary
employee.
o It is ludicrous to think that Enchanted conjured this up as an
afterthought to justify his termination before probationary
period would be over.
o Contrary to the findings of the CA, the Court finds that Enchanted had basis when it
decided not to continue with the services of Verzo as SH-MIM.
 First, it should be pointed out that Verzo himself admitted that the performance
evaluation he received on February 3, 2010 was accompanied by the respective
reports of Schoefield, Montemayor and Velesrubio. These reports detailed the
reasons why Verzo failed to meet the standards set by Enchanted and
compromised the safety of its patrons.
 Second, Verzo’s dismissal was valid because he failed to adhere to the dictates of
common sense which required that he act in accordance with the necessary work
ethics and basic skills required by his position as SH-MIM and by his profession as
licensed engineer.
 Third, Velesrubio advice to Verzo to resign should not be taken as an indication
of bad faith on the part of Enchanted.
 Contrary to Verzos theory that Velesrubio conspired with Enchanted to
oust him from his position
o The Court gives credence to the reports made by Verzos very own
colleagues, Schoefield and Montemayor. As against Verzos self-
serving theory, Schoefiled and Montemayor clearly detailed the
reasons why Verzo lacked the required competence.
 The reasons in their reports were numerous and spelled
out with particulars, unlikely products of fabrication.

ISSUE #2: Whether or not Enchanted should have complied with the 2 notice rule?

RULING: YES.

o Whether or not Verzo was afforded the opportunity to explain his side is of no
consequence.
 Under Section 2 Rule I, Book VI of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code:
 Paragraph D:
o If the termination is brought about by the completion of a
contract or phase thereof, or by failure of an employee to meet
the standards of the employer in the case of probationary
employment, it shall be sufficient that a written notice is served
 the employee, within a reasonable time from the effective date
of termination.
 In Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. v. Magtibay, Jr
 Unlike under the first ground for the valid termination of probationary
employment which is for cause, the second ground does not require
notice and hearing. Due process of law for this second ground consists of
making the reasonable standards expected of the employee during his
probationary period known to him at the time of his probationary
employment. It is in apprising him of the standards against which his
performance shall be continuously assessed where due process
regarding the second ground lies, and not in notice and hearing as in the
case of the first ground
 Considering that Verzo failed to meet the reasonable standards set out by it,
Enchanted cannot be compelled to regularize Verzo. Enchanted, being engaged
in the business of providing entertainment and amusement with mechanical rides
and facilities, is not duty-bound to retain an employee who is clearly unfit.
MANILA PAVILION HOTEL vs. HENRY DELADA

FACTS:

- Delada was the Union President of the Manila Pavilion Supervisors Association at MPH
o He was originally assigned as Head Waiter of Rotisserie, a fine dining restaurant
o Pursuant to a supervisory personnel reorganization program, MPH reassigned him as
Head Waiter of Seasons Coffee Shop
o declined the inter-outlet transfer and instead asked for a grievance meeting pursuant to
their CBA
o He also requested his retention as Head Waiter of Rotisserie while the grievance
procedure was ongoing.
o MPH replied and told respondent to report to his new assignment for the time being,
without prejudice to the resolution of the grievance involving the transfer.
o He adamantly refused to assume his new post at the Seasons Coffee Shop and instead
continued to report to Rotisserie.
o MPH sent him several memoranda on various dates, requiring him to explain in writing
why he should not be penalized for the following offenses:
 serious misconduct
 willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the employer
 gross insubordination
 gross and habitual neglect of duties
 willful breach of trust
o Despite the notices from MPH, Delada persistently rebuffed orders for him to report to
his new assignment.
 Deladas Contention:
 since the grievance machinery under their CBA had already been
initiated, his transfer must be held in abeyance.
o Thus, on 9 May 2007, MPH initiated administrative proceedings against him. He attended
the hearings together with union representatives.
 the parties failed to reach a settlement during the grievance meeting
 Delada then elevated his grievance to the Peers Resources Development Director.
Still, no settlement between the parties was reached.
 Delada then appealed the matter to the Grievance Committee level. The
committee recommended that he proceed to the next level of the grievance
procedure, as it was unable to reach a decision on the matter
o Delada lodged a Complaint before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. On 25
May 2007, the parties agreed to submit for voluntary arbitration.
o While respondents Complaint concerning the validity of his transfer was pending
 MPH continued with the disciplinary action against him for his refusal to report
to his new post at Seasons Coffee Shop.
  Citing security and safety reasons, petitioner also placed respondent on
a 30-day preventive suspension.
o On 8 June 2007, MPH issued a Decision, which found him guilty of insubordination based
on his repeated and willful disobedience of the transfer order.
 The Decision imposed on Delada the penalty of 90-day suspension.
 He opposed the Decision, arguing that MPH had lost its authority to
proceed with the disciplinary action against him, since the matter had
already been included in the voluntary arbitration.
o On 14 December 2007, the PVA issued a Decision and ruled that the transfer of Delada
was a valid exercise of management prerogative
 the transfer order was done in the interest of the efficient and economic
operations of MPH, and that there was no malice, bad faith, or improper motive
attendant upon the transfer of Delada
 They found that the mere fact that he was the Union President did not put color
or ill motive and purpose
 the PVA found that the real reason why he refused to obey the transfer order was
that he asked for additional monetary benefits as a condition for his transfer
 the panel ruled that his transfer from Rotisserie to Seasons Coffee Shop did not
prejudice or inconvenience him
 Neither did it result in diminution of salaries or demotion in rank.
 The PVA thus pronounced that Delada had no valid and justifiable reason to
refuse or even to delay compliance with the managements directive
o The PVA also ruled that there was no legal and factual basis to support petitioners
imposition of preventive suspension on Delada
 MPH went beyond the 30-day period of preventive suspension prescribed by the
Implementing Rules of the Labor Code when petitioner proceeded to impose a
separate penalty of 90-day suspension on him.
 MPH lost its authority to continue with the administrative proceedings for
insubordination and willful disobedience of the transfer order and to impose the
penalty of 90-day suspension on respondent.
 According to the panel, it acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the issue
when the parties submitted the aforementioned issues before it.
 Thus, MPH effectively relinquished its power to impose disciplinary
action on Delada.
o The CA affirmed the Decision of the PVA and denied petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration. Consequently, MPH filed the instant Petition.

ISSUE: Whether MPH retained the authority to continue with the administrative case against Delada
for insubordination and willful disobedience of the transfer order despite the joint submission to the
PVA?

RULING: NO.
- In the case of Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. v. Deputy Administrator Magsalin, and Ludo & Luym
Corporation v. Saornido
o the SC held that the voluntary arbitrator had plenary jurisdiction and authority to
interpret the agreement to arbitrate and to determine the scope of his own authority
subject only, in a proper case, to the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court.
o It was also ruled that that voluntary arbitrators are generally expected to decide only
those questions expressly delineated by the submission agreement; that, nevertheless,
they can assume that they have the necessary power to make a final settlement on the
related issues, since arbitration is the final resort for the adjudication of disputes.
o However, the doctrine in the following cases is inapplicable in the case at bar. In those
cases, the voluntary arbitrators did in fact assume jurisdiction over the related issues and
made rulings on the matter.
- In the Present case, PVA did not make a ruling on the specific issue of insubordination and willful
disobedience of the transfer order.
o The PVA merely said that its disagreement with the 90-day penalty of suspension
stemmed from the fact that the penalty went beyond the 30-day limit for preventive
suspension
o it must be pointed out that the basis of the 30-day preventive suspension imposed on
Delada was different from that of the 90-day penalty of suspension
 The 30-day preventive suspension was imposed by MPH on the assertion that
Delada might sabotage hotel operations if preventive suspension would not be
imposed on him.
 the penalty of 90-day suspension was imposed on respondent as a form of
disciplinary action
 Preventive suspension is a disciplinary measure resorted to by the employer
pending investigation of an alleged malfeasance or misfeasance committed by an
employee.
 penalty of suspension refers to the disciplinary action imposed on the employee
after an official investigation or administrative hearing is conducted
- MPH did not lose its authority to discipline respondent for his continued refusal to report to his
new assignment.
o The court cited Allied Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals.
 In this case The refusal to obey a valid transfer order constitutes willful disobedience
of a lawful order of an employer. Employees may object to, negotiate and seek
redress against employers for rules or orders that they regard as unjust or illegal.
However, until and unless these rules or orders are declared illegal or improper by
competent authority, the employees ignore or disobey them at their peril. For
Galanidas continued refusal to obey Allied Banks transfer orders, we hold that
the bank dismissed Galanida for just cause in accordance with Article 282(a) of
the Labor Code. Galanida is thus not entitled to reinstatement or to separation
pay.
 o Pursuant to Allied Banking, unless the order of MPH is rendered invalid, there is a
presumption of the validity of that order. Since the PVA eventually ruled that the transfer
order was a valid exercise of management prerogative, we hereby reverse the Decision
and the Resolution of the CA affirming the Decision of the PVA in this respect. MPH had
the authority to continue with the administrative proceedings for insubordination and
willful disobedience against Delada and to impose on him the penalty of suspension. As a
consequence, petitioner is not liable to pay back wages and other benefits for the period
corresponding to the penalty of 90-day suspension.

DISTRIBUTION & CONTROL PRODUCTS, INC./VINCENT M. TIAMSIC vs. JEFFREY E. SANTOS

FACTS:

- Distribution and Control (DC) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of selling and
distributing electrical products and equipment with Vincent M. Tiamsic as its president.
- Jeffery Santos on the other hand, was employed as petitioners’ company driver.
o He filed against DC a complaint for constructive illegal dismissal and payment of
separation pay.
o Contention:
o he received a notice informing him that he was being placed under preventive suspension
for a period of thirty (30) days because he was one of the employees suspected of having
participated in the unlawful taking of circuit breakers and electrical products
o a criminal complaint was filed against him and several other persons
o He immediately inquired from the Human Resources of DC as to the reason for his
suspension but his request fell into deaf ears
o after the lapse of his 30-day suspension he was no longer allowed to return to work
without any justification for such disallowance
- Contention of DC:
o Santos as their company driver whose job included the delivery of items purchased by
customers, receipt documentation and recording of previously purchased products and
return them to their warehouse
o However, DC through its hired auditors, conducted a physical stock inventory of all
materials stored in the company’s warehouse it was found out that a number of electrical
materials and products were missing
o Only Santos and the company warehouseman were the only persons who had complete
access to the company warehouse
o considering the size and weight of the missing items, they can only be carried by no less
than two (2) persons
o DC demanded an explanation from Santos and the warehouseman, but they failed to
make an account as to how these products had gone missing from the warehouse and
office building; as such, petitioners filed a criminal complaint for qualified theft and,
 thereafter, they suspended herein respondent; and after the lapse of his suspension,
respondent no longer returned to work.

RULING OF THE LABOR ARBITER

- Found Santos to be illegally terminated from his employment

o The LA held that herein petitioners had the burden of proving that respondent’s dismissal
was valid and their failure to discharge this burden only means that the dismissal was not
justified and, therefore, illegal

RULING OF THE NLRC

- Dismissed the appeal

- Likewise denied the motion of reconsideration

RULING OF THE CA

- Denied the Certiorari and affirmed the LA and NLRC

Issue: Whether or not Santos was validly terminated by DC?

Ruling: No.

- Constitution, statutes and jurisprudence uniformly guarantee to every employee or worker

tenurial security.
o this means is that an employer shall not dismiss an employee except for a just or
authorized cause and only after due process is observed.
- The court cited Brown Madonna Press, Inc. v. Casas where it held that:
o In determining whether an employee’s dismissal had been legal, the inquiry focuses on
whether the dismissal violated his right to substantial and procedural due process. An
employee’s right not to be dismissed without just or authorized cause as provided by law,
is covered by his right to substantial due process. Compliance with procedure provided in
the Labor Code, on the other hand, constitutes the procedural due process right of an
employee
o The violation of either the substantial due process right or the procedural due process
right of an employee produces different results
 Termination without a just or authorized cause renders the dismissal invalid, and
entitles the employee to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other
privileges and full backwages
 An employee’s removal for just or authorized cause but without complying with
the proper procedure, on the other hand, does not invalidate the dismissal. It
obligates the erring employer to pay nominal damages to the employee
 Thus, two separate inquiries must be made in resolving illegal dismissal cases:
first, whether the dismissal had been made in accordance with the procedure set
in the Labor Code; and second, whether the dismissal had been for just or
authorized cause
- As to substantive due process, the court cited Agusan Del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al.
v. Cagampang, et al and held that:
o In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the
dismissal is for just and valid cause; failure to do so would necessarily mean that the
dismissal was illegal.
o If doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the
scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. Moreover, the quantum of proof
required in determining the legality of an employee’s dismissal is only substantial
evidence.
 Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence or relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,
even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.
o Application
 Loss of trust and confidence is a just cause for dismissal under Article 282(c) of
the Labor Code, which provides that an employer may terminate an employment
for “[f]raud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his
employer or duly authorized representative.”
 However, in order for the employer to properly invoke this ground, the
employer must satisfy two conditions.
o First, the employer must show that the employee concerned
holds a position of trust and confidence.
 two classes of positions of trust.
 first class consists of managerial employees, or
those who, by the nature of their position, are
entrusted with confidential and delicate matters
and from whom greater fidelity to duty is
correspondingly expected.
 The second class includes “cashiers, auditors,
property custodians, or those who, in the normal
and routine exercise of their functions, regularly
handle significant amounts of [the employer’s]
money or propery
o Second, the employer must establish the existence of an act
justifying the loss of trust and confidence.
 To be a valid cause for dismissal, the act that betrays the
employer’s trust must be real
 founded on clearly established facts, and the
employee’s breach of the trust must be willful
 founded on clearly established facts, and the
employee’s breach of the trust must be willful
  Stated differently, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not needed to
justify the loss as long as the employer has reasonable ground to believe
that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and his participation
therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of
his position.
 Nonetheless, the right of an employer to dismiss employees on the
ground of loss of trust and confidence, however, must not be exercised
arbitrarily and without just cause.
o Unsupported by sufficient proof, loss of confidence is without
basis and may not be successfully invoked as a ground for
dismissal.
 the LA, NLRC and the CA are unanimous in their finding that petitioners were not
able to discharge their burden of proving that their termination of respondent’s
employment was for a just and valid cause.
 This is a question of fact and it is settled that findings of fact of quasi-
judicial agencies are accorded great respect, even finality, by this Court
 It is true that respondent may indeed be considered as one who occupies
a position of trust and confidence as he is one of those who were
entrusted with the handling of a significant amount or portion of
petitioners’ products for sale.
o HOWEVER, DC was not able to establish the existence of an act
justifying their alleged loss of trust and confidence in respondent.
- As to procedural due process, the settled rule is that in termination proceedings of employees,
procedural due process consists of the twin requirements of notice and hearing.
o 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
o Unilever Philippines, Inc. v. Rivera the court laid down the guidelines on compliance to
procedural due process
 The first written notice to be served on the employees
 contain the specific causes or grounds
 directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their
written explanation within a reasonable period
o “Reasonable opportunity” 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
 specifically mention which company rules, if any, are violated and/or
which among the grounds under Art. 282 is being charged against the
employees.
 employers should schedule and conduct a hearing or conference wherein the
employees will be given the opportunity to:
 explain and clarify their defenses
 present evidence
 rebut the evidence presented against them
 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.
 APPLICATION:
 the LA, the NLRC and the CA again uniformly ruled that respondent was
dismissed sans procedural due process.
 The only notice given by petitioners to respondent was the notice of his
30-day preventive suspension and, as found by the LA, nothing therein
indicated that he was required nor was given the opportunity to explain
his side
 It is true that petitioners conducted their own investigation but the same
was made without the participation of respondent.
 As to the required notice of termination, petitioners allege that they did
not terminate respondent from his employment and that it was the latter
who actually decided to abandon his job. However, the LA, the NLRC and
the CA again unanimously found that petitioners failed to substantiate
their allegation and the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from such
finding.

SPECTRUM SECURTY SERVICES vs. GRAVE

FACTS: this is a case for illegal dismissal

- Spectrum is in the business of security services

o It employed and posted Grave, Aroa, De Chavez, Samarita, Marohom, Mahilom and
Martin (Petitioners) at the premises of Ibiden Philippines
o The controversy started when the petitioner implemented an action plan as part of its
operational and manpower supervision enhancement program geared towards the
gradual replacement of security guards at Ibiden
 Pursuant to the action plan, it issued separate “Notice(s) to Return to Unit” to the
respondents directing them to report to its head office and to update their
documents for reassignment.
