April Rose S.

Lerit

Legal Writing

1JD-C

I.

The following are the facts of the occurrence

between Mr. Juan W. Dela Cruz and the Quickstop
Marketing:

-That Mr. Juan Dela Cruz was first hired as a Collecting Agent of
Quickstop Marketing and was later promoted as an Assistant
Collection Supervisor I, Assistant Collection Supervisor II,
Collection Supervisor , and finally as Credit Collection Supervisor ;
-That Quickstop Marketing is engaged in the business of buying
and selling appliances, and maintains branches in Ilocos,
Pampanga, Metro Manila and Novaliches;
-That Mr. Juan Dela Cruz was assigned as Assistant Collection at
Novaliches Branch;
-That in every Quickstop Branch, it has a Credit and Collection
Department as well as Sales Department;
-That on 24 September 2014, the manager of Novaliches branch
had a motorcycle accident which incapacitated him t report to
work and perform his function as branch manager;
-That during the absence of the branch manager, it is Mr. Dela
Cruz who performed some of its responsibilities;
-That on 30 September 2014, the inventory clerk, Mr. Johnny Perez
discovered that ten (10) pieces of Samsung DVD Players are
missing;

1 | Page

-That on the following day, Mr. Juan Dela Cruz inquired from Mr.
Perez whether the lost items were already reported to the head
office, but the latter said that he will report the incident after
three days when he finished his inventory;
-That Mr. Dela Cruz was surprised when he finds out that Mr. Perez
was not able to report the said incident until 17 October 2014
when the Area Manager was already in the branch to conduct an
audit;
-That Five (5) days later, a Notice to Explain was issued among
the employees of the Sales Department as well as in the Credit
and Collection Department;
-That Mr. Dela Cruz was not given an opportunity to file an Answer
to the said Notice to Explain as well as to conduct a Hearing
where he may be able to defend himself with the assistance of a
counsel;
-That on 02 November 2014, Mr. Juan Dela Cruz received a Notice
of Termination, on the ground of negligence, serious misconduct
and loss of trust and confidence.

II.

The following is the document that Mr. Juan Dela

Cruz needed to file in accordance with the said
Notice of Termination:

-Complaint for Illegal Dismissal

III.

The following are the Laws that are applicable to

the case:

Book VI, Rule I, Section 2(d) of the Omnibus Rules

Implementing the Labor Code:

2 | Page

Standards of due process: Requirements of notice. In all cases

of termination of employment, the following standards of due
process shall be substantially observed:
For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in
Article 282 of the Code:
(a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the
ground or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee
reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side;
(b) A hearing or conference during which the employee
concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the employee so
desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his
evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him; and
(c) A written notice of termination served on the employee
indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances,
grounds have been established to justify his termination.
In case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be served on
the employees last known address.
IV.

Pertinent Jurisprudence that can be apply to this

case:
San Antonio vs NLRC, et al.
[G.R. No. 100829. November 28, 1995.]

In this case, 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
3 | Page

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.
Nitto Enterprises vs NLRC
[G.R. No. L-114337. September 29, 1995.]

4 | Page

In this case, the Supreme Court held that:

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.

5 | Page