Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LABOR RELATIONS
OCTOBER 14, 2017
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
c. Balancing of Interest
Burden of proof is upon the employer to show just cause for the imposition of a penalty upon the employee.
o There must exist substantial evidence to prove just or authorized cause of termination.
o When there is an allegation of non-payment of salaries and other monetary benefits, it is the
employers burden to prove its payments to its employees. The employers evidence must show, with a
reasonable degree of certainty, that it paid and that the workers actually received the payment.
o The finding of probable cause by the DOJ Secretary in the criminal aspect of the case against the
employee is sufficient justification for his termination of employment in the administrative aspect of the
case. (Concepcion v. Minex Import Corporation)
o Failure of employer to submit documents which are presumed to be in its possession, inspite of an
Order to do so, implies that the presentation of said documents is prejudicial to its case. (De Guzman v.
NLRC, 540 SCRA 210)
In the imposition of penalty, whether for suspension or terminations, the same must be commensurate to the
offense committed.
o Sagales v. Rustans Commercial corporation GR No. 166554, 27 November 2008
The Supreme Court also emphasized: the right of every employee to security of tenure is all the more
secured by the Labor Code by providing that the employer shall not terminate the services of an
employee except for a just cause or when authorized by law. However, the employer, in exercising its
right to terminate employees for just and authorized causes must impose a penalty commensurate with
the act, conduct, or omission imputed to the employee.
o Negros Slashers v. Alvin Teng GR No. 187122, 22 February 2012
The Supreme court find that the penalty of dismissal handed out of against Teng was indeed too harsh.
Missing a team game is indeed a punishable offense. However, we agree that the Labor Arbiter that
such isolated foolishness of an employee does not justify the extreme penalty of dismissal from service.
Petitioners could have opted to impose a fine or suspension on Teng for his unacceptable conduct.
REQUIREMENTS FOR LEGALITY
Substantive and Procedural due process in termination cases
o Under Section 1, Rule XIV of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code, the dismissal of
an employee must be for a just cause or authorized cause, and after due process. The 2 requirements of
this legal provision are:
a. The legality of the act of dismissal, that is, dismissal under the grounds provided under Article 282 of
the New Labor Code; and
b. The legality in the manner of dismissal, that is, with due observance of the procedural requirements
of Sections 2, 5, and 6 of Batas Pambansa Blg.130.
While the Labor code of the nature and remedies available with regard to the first, such as: (a) reinstatement to
his former position without loss of seniority rights, and (b) payment of backwages corresponding to the period
from his dismissal up to actual reinstatement, said Code does not deal at all with the second, that is, the manner
of dismissal, which is therefore, governed exclusively by the Civil Code.
COMMISSION OF A CRIME OR OFFENSE BY THE EMPLOYEE AGAINST THE PERSON OF HIS EMPLOYER OR
IMMEDIATE MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY OR DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
The act of the employer in terminating the services of an employee in this case can be said to be an
act of self-defense impelled by the natural instinct of self-preservation.
The fact that the employee has been absolved in a criminal prosecution involving misconduct does not
preclude the employer from attempting to prove the same before the labor arbiter or the latter from
accepting that evidence as sufficient foundation for a finding of lawful termination of employment.
(Commercial Motors Corporation v. Commissioner, NLRC 192 SCRA 191)
Conviction of an employee in a criminal case is not indispensable to warrant his dismissal by his
employer (Mercury Drug Corp. v. NLRC, 177 SCRA 580) and the fact that a criminal complaint against
the employees has been dropped by the city fiscal is not binding and conclusive upon a labor tribunal.
(Starlight Plastic Industrial Corporation v. NLRC, 171 SCRA 315)
Reno Foods, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa-Katiounan, GR 164016
The SC has held that a criminal conviction is not necessary to find just cause for employment
termination. Neither was there any legal or equitable justification for awarding financial assistance to
an employee who as dismissed for stealing company property. While compassion for the poor is
desirable, it is not meant to coddle those who are unworthy of such consideration.