Bill to limit the posting of termination of employment in newspapers

A lawmaker has filed a bill seeking to define the legal parameters of permissible
and non-permissible notices of termination of employment in the newspapers by limiting
it to situations where the former employees were accountable officers.
Rep. Joaquin Chipeco, Jr. (
nd
!istrict, "aguna#, author of $ouse %ill &'(, said the
practice of publishing notices of se)erance from employment should be limited to
situations where the former employees were accountable officers, such as cashiers,
treasurers, collection officers, sales representati)es, and others who handle cash, property
and stocks of the company.
*+t cannot be denied that ,uridical entities ha)e that right to protect itself from
dishonest employees. +t is clear that the e-ercise of that right is open to abuse,. Chipeco
said.
Chipeco said without a doubt, companies and other ,uridical persons ha)e the right
to warn the public against present and future dealings with former employees.
Chipeco said the ads usually notify the public that an employee is no longer
connected with the particular company and the corporation will not honor that any
transaction entered with him.
*/ith the employee0s face splashed across the newspaper and with the notice itself
in fine print, the notice uncannily resembles a wanted poster of fugiti)es from ,ustice. 1o
top it all, wanted posters or something akin to them, are also sometimes published in the
same newspaper space,. Chipeco said.
*+t may be that pre)ious employees either ha)e the potential or the inclination to
harm the interests of the corporations, and it is in the legitimate interest of the company to
protect itself from possible lawsuits from public by forewarning the latter against
continued dealings with unscrupulous e--employees,. Chipeco said.
Chipeco said an employee who resigns from her work due to strained relations,
misunderstanding, se-ual harassment, e-posure of irregularities in high company echelons
or under similar unpleasant circumstances, but without fault on her part, may find herself
on the recei)ing end of a )indicti)e act on the part of his former boss by ha)ing a notice of
se)erance of employment relations published in the newspapers.
$e added that if that worker happens to be applying for another ,ob at the moment
and her future employer becomes aware of such notice, this could pre,udice the
employment opportunities of the sub,ect employee.
NR # 3546
AUG 2, 2014
*/hile the prospecti)e employee may be asked to e-plain the circumstances
surrounding the publication, a doubt ne)ertheless has already been created by the
publication and the employer, gi)en there many other applicants for the position, would
most probably prefer workers unsullied by such publications,. Chipeco said.
2nder the bill, an aggrie)ed former employee shall be entitled to payment for
damages in the amount of 345,555 but not more than 365,555 upon the discretion of the
court.
Chipeco said there is a need to balance the right of companies to be protected
against any corporate harm that might be inflicted to it by disgruntled employees and the
right of workers to preser)e their integrity and reputations against the undue aspersion that
might be cast against them.
*/hen corporate interests are pre,udiced, the company still has a lot of resources to
compensate against the loss. $owe)er, the lowly workers ha)e, in most cases, only their
character, industry and reputation to cope with ad)ersities. 1hat is why, in the une)en
contest between capital and labor, our laws and ,urisprudence ha)e always sided with
labor to le)el the field, so to speak,. Chipeco said. (75# lvc