-Jurisprudence on

substantial compliance of due process without hearing

 Punongbayan and Araullo v. Lepon, G.R. No. 174115, [November 9, 2015]

Respondent was dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence by committing
the following acts: (1) negotiating to transfer to a competing firm while still employed
with P&A; (2) enjoining a number of P&A's clients to transfer their audit business to a
competing firm; (3) inviting P&A's staff to join him in his transfer to a competing firm;
and (4) enjoining P&A's staff to engage in a sympathy strike during his preventive
suspension. P&A failed to conduct a hearing or investigation prior to the notice of
termination.

"P&A complied with the two-notice rule under Article 292 of the Labor Code, as
amended. P&A served respondent with the first notice dated May 30, 2002 which
properly apprised him of the incidents that contributed to P&A's loss of trust and
confidence. Respondent sent his reply dated June 6, 2002 where he justified his
actions, and presented his defenses against the accusations against him. After
evaluation of the matters raised in respondent's reply, P&A sent a notice of
termination dated June 13, 2002 informing him that the totality of his reactions and
actuations in relation to the proposed combination of P&A and SGV has put his
loyalty to serious doubt, and has led to a complete loss of the partners' trust and
confidence in him. This is the second notice required under Article 292.

Respondent cannot argue that a hearing, investigation or any semblance thereof

should have been conducted before he was terminated. In Perez v. Philippine
Telegraph and Telephone Company, this Court explained the meaning of "ample
opportunity to be heard" under Article 292 of the Labor Code, as amended:

A hearing means that a party should be given a chance to adduce his evidence to
support his side of the case and that the evidence should be taken into account in
the adjudication of the controversy. "To be heard" does not mean verbal
argumentation alone inasmuch as one may be heard just as effectively through
written explanations, submissions or pleadings. Therefore, while the phrase "ample
opportunity to be heard" may in fact include an actual hearing, it is not limited to a
formal hearing only. In other words, the existence of an actual, formal "trial-type"
hearing, although preferred, is not absolutely necessary to satisfy the employee's
right to be heard.
 xxx xxx xxx

(a) "ample opportunity to be heard" means any meaningful opportunity (verbal or

written) given to the employee to answer the charges against him and submit
evidence in support of his defense, whether in a hearing, conference or some other
fair, just and reasonable way.

(b) a formal hearing or conference becomes mandatory only when requested by the
employee in writing or substantial evidentiary disputes exist or a company rule or
practice requires it, or when similar circumstances justify it.

(c) the "ample opportunity to be heard" standard in the Labor Code prevails over
the "hearing or conference" requirement in the implementing rules and regulations.
(Citations omitted; emphasis supplied).

Despite the lack of formal hearing or investigation, respondent was given ample
opportunity to be heard. He was given the opportunity to refute the charges against
him. In fact, his reply dated June 6, 2002 thoroughly discussed his justifications and
defenses to the accusations imputed on him. He cannot argue that the absence of a
formal hearing or investigation, despite his denial to the accusations, constituted a
defect on his dismissal from employment."

 Mariano v. Martinez Memorial Colleges, Inc., G.R. No. 194119, [April 13, 2016]

MMC terminated the petitioner because of "serious or gross dishonesty and for having
committed an offense against [MMC]," which was based on the findings in the System
Review Report. Another basis was the alleged diversion of MMC's funds wherein non-
essential accounts or accounts payable to and for MMC were deposited to "private
accounts." Records of the company show that Martinez, through MMC's counsel, sent a
letter to the petitioner ordering her to explain in writing her possible involvement in
the diversion of MMC's funds.

"The foregoing notice complies with the first written notice requirement as it
specified the ground for termination and gave the petitioner an opportunity to
explain her side. The due process mandate does not require that the entire report
from which the termination is based should be attached to the notice. What is
essential is that the particular acts or omissions for which her dismissal is sought
are indicated in the letter.
 "The petitioner also argues that while it may be that her termination comes within
the purview of a management prerogative, Martinez should have called for a
meeting or conference with the other affected officials. Her position, however, is
untenable considering that a letter was already sent to them where they were
ordered to explain within five days their possible involvement in the alleged
diversion of funds, and they were able to explain their side in a joint letter-answer
dated May 6, 2008. A hearing does not strictly mean a personal or face-to-face
confrontation. It is sufficient that an employee has the meaningful opportunity to
controvert the charges against him and to submit evidence in support thereof."

 Ramirez v. Polyson Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 207898, [October 19, 2016]

The petitioners were dismissed by the respondent for engaging in illicit activities of
inducing or threatening their co-employees not to render overtime work.

"With respect to procedural due process, it is settled that in termination

proceedings of employees, 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. In the present case, Polyson was able to establish that these
requirements were sufficiently complied with."

 South Cotabato Communications Corp. v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 217575, [June
15, 2016

Petitioners argued that there is denial of due process because of the refusal of the
Hearing Officer to reset the hearing set on April 1, 2004, which thus allegedly deprived
petitioners the opportunity to present their evidence.

"Petitioners' claim of denial of due process deserves scant consideration. The

essence of due process, jurisprudence teaches, is simply an opportunity to be heard,
or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or
an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. As
 long as the parties are, in fine, given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is
rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met.

That petitioners were given ample opportunity to present their evidence before the
Regional Director is indisputable. They were notified of the summary investigations
conducted on March 3, 2004 and April 1, 2004, both of which they failed to attend.
To justify their non-appearance, petitioners claim they requested a resetting of the
April 1, 2004 hearing due to the unavailability of their counsel. However, no such
explanation was proffered as to why they failed to attend the first hearing. At any
rate, it behooved the petitioners to ensure that they, as well as their counsel, would
be available on the dates set for the summary investigation as this would enable
them to prove their claim of non-existence of an employer-employee relationship.
Clearly, their own negligence did them in. Their lament that they have been
deprived of due process is specious."

 Oyster Plaza Hotel v. Melivo, G.R. No. 217455, [October 5, 2016]

Respondent filed before the NLRC a Complaint for illegal dismissal. Petitioners argued
that they did not receive the summons, the notices of hearings and the copy of the LA
decision. Hence, they were deprived of their right to due process.

"Further, the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as

applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or to
seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. What the law prohibits
is the absolute absence of the opportunity to be heard; hence, a party cannot feign
denial of due process where he had been afforded the opportunity to present his
side.

The Court notes that even though the petitioners failed to participate in the
proceedings before the LA, they were able to argue their case before the NLRC. The
petitioners, through their pleadings, were able to argue their position and submit
evidence in support of their position that they did not receive the summons and
notices from the LA; and that Melivo was not illegally dismissed."

 Aluag v. BIR Multi-Purpose Cooperative, G.R. No. 228449, [December 6, 2017]

Petitioner was legally dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence for her
failure to deposit the checks required of her by the respondent.
 "Proceeding from the foregoing parameters, the Court finds that BIRMPC sufficiently
observed the standards of procedural due process in effecting Aluag's dismissal,
considering that it: (a) issued a written notice specifying her infractions; (b) granted
her ample opportunity to be heard or explain her side when she was required to
submit an explanation; and (c) served a written notice of termination after verifying
the infraction committed. Notably, the Court held in Perez v. Philippine Telegraph
and Telephone Company that procedural due process is met even without an actual
hearing as long as the employee is accorded a chance to explain her side of the
controversy, as what happened here."

 Bravo v. Urios College, G.R. No. 198066, [June 7, 2017]

Petitioner allegedly misclassified several positions and miscomputed his and other
employees' salaries. The school's review committee recommended to administratively
charged him for serious misconduct or willful breach of trust. He later received a show
cause memo requiring him to explain in writing why his services should not be
terminated.

"In termination based on just causes, the employer must comply with procedural
due process by furnishing the employee a written notice containing the specific
grounds or causes for dismissal. The notice must also direct the employee to submit
his or her written explanation within a reasonable period from the receipt of the
notice. Afterwards, the employer must give the employee ample opportunity to be
heard and defend himself or herself. A hearing, however, is not a condition sine qua
non. A formal hearing only becomes mandatory in termination cases when so
required under company rules or when the employee requests for it.

Previously, a formal hearing was considered as an indispensable component of

procedural due process in dismissal cases. However, in Perez v. Philippine
Telegraph and Telephone Co., this Court clarified:

The test for the fair procedure guaranteed under Article 277 (b) [now, Article
292(b)] cannot be whether there has been a formal pretermination confrontation
between the employer and the employee. The "ample opportunity to be heard"
standard is neither synonymous nor similar to a formal hearing. To confine the
employee's right to be heard to a solitary form narrows down that right. It deprives
him of other equally effective forms of adducing evidence in his defense. Certainly,
such an exclusivist and absolutist interpretation is overly restrictive. The "very
 nature of due process negates any concept of inflexible procedures universally
applicable to every imaginable situation."

xxx xxx xxx

"Significantly, Section 2 (d), Rule I of the Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor
Code itself provides that the so-called standards of due process outlined therein
shall be observed "substantially," not strictly. This is a recognition that while a
formal hearing or conference is ideal, it is not an absolute, mandatory or exclusive
avenue of due process.

An employee's right to be heard in termination cases under Article 277 (b) as

implemented by Section 2 (d), Rule I of the Implementing Rules of Book VI of the
Labor Code should be interpreted in broad strokes. It is satisfied not only by a
formal face to face confrontation but by any meaningful opportunity to controvert
the charges against him and to submit evidence in support thereof.

. . . "To be heard" does not mean verbal argumentation alone inasmuch as one may
be heard just as effectively through written explanations, submissions or pleadings.
Therefore, while the phrase "ample opportunity to be heard" may in fact include an
actual hearing, it is not limited to a formal hearing only. In other words, the
existence of an actual, formal "trial-type" hearing, although preferred, is not
absolutely necessary to satisfy the employee's right to be heard. (Emphasis in the
original, citations omitted)

Any meaningful opportunity for the employee to present evidence and address the
charges against him or her satisfies the requirement of ample opportunity to be
heard. "

 Saunar v. Ermita, G.R. No. 186502, [December 13, 2017]

NOTE: In this case. the SC clarified that formal hearing although not indispensable is
still required in certain circumstances.

"Thus, while the Court in Arboleda recognized that the lack of a formal hearing does
not necessarily transgress the due process guarantee, it did not however regard the
formal hearing as a mere superfluity. It continued that it is a procedural right that
may be invoked by the party. It is true that in subsequent cases, the Court reiterated
that a formal hearing is not obligatory in administrative proceedings because the
due process requirement is satisfied if the parties are given the opportunity to
explain their respective sides through position papers or pleadings. Nonetheless, the
idea that a formal hearing is not indispensable should not be hastily thrown around
by administrative bodies.

xxx xxx xxx

The observance of a formal hearing in administrative tribunal or bodies other than

judicial is not novel. In Perez v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company, the
Court opined that in illegal dismissal cases, a formal hearing or conference becomes
mandatory when requested by the employee in writing, or substantial evidentiary
disputes exists, or a company rule or practice requires it, or when similar
circumstances justify it.

In Joson v. Executive Secretary Torres (Joson), the Court ruled that the respondent
was denied due process after he was deprived of the right to a formal investigation
with the opportunity to face the witnesses against him.

xxx xxx xxx

Thus, administrative bodies should not simply brush aside the conduct of formal
hearings and claim that due process was observed by merely relying on position
papers and/or affidavits. Besides, the Court in Joson recognized the inherent
limitations of relying on position papers alone as the veracity of its contents cannot
be readily ascertained. Through the examination and cross-examination of
witnesses, administrative bodies would be in a better position to ferret out the truth
and in turn, render a more accurate decision.

xxx xxx xxx

To reiterate, due process is a malleable concept anchored on fairness and equity.

The due process requirement before administrative bodies are not as strict
compared to judicial tribunals in that it suffices that a party is given a reasonable
opportunity to be heard. Nevertheless, such "reasonable opportunity" should not be
confined to the mere submission of position papers and/or affidavits and the parties
must be given the opportunity to examine the witnesses against them. The right to a
hearing is a right which may be invoked by the parties to thresh out substantial
factual issues. It becomes even more imperative when the rules itself of the
administrative body provides for one. While the absence of a formal hearing does
not necessarily result in the deprivation of due process, it should be acceptable only
when the party does not invoke the said right or waives the same."