EN BANC

[G.R. No. 152048. April 7, 2009.]

FELIX B. PEREZ and AMANTE G. DORIA , petitioners, vs . PHILIPPINE

TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE COMPANY and JOSE LUIS
SANTIAGO , respondents.

DECISION

CORONA , J : p

Petitioners Felix B. Perez and Amante G. Doria were employed by respondent

Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company (PT&T) as shipping clerk and supervisor,
respectively, in PT&T's Shipping Section, Materials Management Group. cTSHaE

Acting on an alleged unsigned letter regarding anomalous transactions at the

Shipping Section, respondents formed a special audit team to investigate the matter. It
was discovered that the Shipping Section jacked up the value of the freight costs for
goods shipped and that the duplicates of the shipping documents allegedly showed
traces of tampering, alteration and superimposition.
On September 3, 1993, petitioners were placed on preventive suspension for 30
days for their alleged involvement in the anomaly. 1 Their suspension was extended for
15 days twice: first on October 3, 1993 2 and second on October 18, 1993. 3
On October 29, 1993, a memorandum with the following tenor was issued by
respondents:
In line with the recommendation of the AVP-Audit as presented in his report of
October 15, 1993 (copy attached) and the subsequent ling of criminal charges
against the parties mentioned therein, [Mr. Felix Perez and Mr. Amante Doria are]
hereby dismissed from the service for having falsi ed company documents . 4
(emphasis supplied)

On November 9, 1993, petitioners led a complaint for illegal suspension and

illegal dismissal. 5 They alleged that they were dismissed on November 8, 1993, the
date they received the above-mentioned memorandum.
The labor arbiter found that the 30-day extension of petitioners' suspension and
their subsequent dismissal were both illegal. He ordered respondents to pay
petitioners their salaries during their 30-day illegal suspension, as well as to reinstate
them with backwages and 13th month pay.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision of the
labor arbiter. It ruled that petitioners were dismissed for just cause, that they were
accorded due process and that they were illegally suspended for only 15 days (without
stating the reason for the reduction of the period of petitioners' illegal suspension). 6
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In its January 29, 2002
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 decision, 7 the CA af rmed the NLRC decision insofar as petitioners' illegal suspension
for 15 days and dismissal for just cause were concerned. However, it found that
petitioners were dismissed without due process. DSAEIT

Petitioners now seek a reversal of the CA decision. They contend that there was
no just cause for their dismissal, that they were not accorded due process and that they
were illegally suspended for 30 days.
We rule in favor of petitioners.
RESPONDENTS FAILED TO PROVE JUST
CAUSE AND TO OBSERVE DUE PROCESS
The CA, in upholding the NLRC's decision, reasoned that there was suf cient
basis for respondents to lose their con dence in petitioners 8 for allegedly tampering
with the shipping documents. Respondents emphasized the importance of a shipping
order or request, as it was the basis of their liability to a cargo forwarder. 9
We disagree.
Without undermining the importance of a shipping order or request, we nd
respondents' evidence insuf cient to clearly and convincingly establish the facts from
which the loss of con dence resulted. 1 0 Other than their bare allegations and the fact
that such documents came into petitioners' hands at some point, respondents should
have provided evidence of petitioners' functions, the extent of their duties, the
procedure in the handling and approval of shipping requests and the fact that no
personnel other than petitioners were involved. There was, therefore, a patent paucity of
proof connecting petitioners to the alleged tampering of shipping documents.
The alterations on the shipping documents could not reasonably be attributed to
petitioners because it was never proven that petitioners alone had control of or access
to these documents. Unless duly proved or suf ciently substantiated otherwise,
impartial tribunals should not rely only on the statement of the employer that it has lost
confidence in its employee. 1 1
Willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
authorized representative is a just cause for termination. 1 2 However, in General Bank
and Trust Co. v. CA, 1 3 we said: HACaSc

[L]oss of con dence should not be simulated. It should not be used as a

subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjusti ed. Loss of
con dence may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence
to the contrary. It must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify an earlier
action taken in bad faith.

The burden of proof rests on the employer to establish that the dismissal is for
cause in view of the security of tenure that employees enjoy under the Constitution and
the Labor Code. The employer's evidence must clearly and convincingly show the facts
on which the loss of con dence in the employee may be fairly made to rest. 1 4 It must
be adequately proven by substantial evidence. 1 5 Respondents failed to discharge this
burden.
Respondents' illegal act of dismissing petitioners was aggravated by their failure
to observe due process. To meet the requirements of due process in the dismissal of
an employee, an employer must furnish the worker with two written notices: (1) a
written notice specifying the grounds for termination and giving to said employee a
reasonable opportunity to explain his side and (2) another written notice indicating that,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 upon due consideration of all circumstances, grounds have been established to justify
the employer's decision to dismiss the employee. 1 6
Petitioners were neither apprised of the charges against them nor given a chance
to defend themselves. They were simply and arbitrarily separated from work and
served notices of termination in total disregard of their rights to due process and
security of tenure. The labor arbiter and the CA correctly found that respondents failed
to comply with the two-notice requirement for terminating employees.
Petitioners likewise contended that due process was not observed in the
absence of a hearing in which they could have explained their side and refuted the
evidence against them.
There is no need for a hearing or conference. We note a marked difference in the
standards of due process to be followed as prescribed in the Labor Code and its
implementing rules. The Labor Code, on one hand, provides that an employer must
provide the employee ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the
assistance of his representative if he so desires: aDTSHc

ART. 277. Miscellaneous provisions. — . . .

(b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their
right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause and
without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the
employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated
a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall
afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with
the assistance of his representative if he so desires in accordance with
company rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the
Department of Labor and Employment. Any decision taken by the employer shall
be without prejudice to the right of the worker to contest the validity or legality of
his dismissal by ling a complaint with the regional branch of the National Labor
Relations Commission. The burden of proving that the termination was for a valid
or authorized cause shall rest on the employer. (emphasis supplied)

The omnibus rules implementing the Labor Code, on the other hand, require a
hearing and conference during which the employee concerned is given the opportunity
to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against
him: 1 7
Section 2. Security of Tenure. — . . .

(d) 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 de ned in Article 282 of
the Labor Code:
(i) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for
termination, and giving said employee reasonable opportunity within which to
explain his side.

(ii) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with

the assistance of counsel if he so desires, is given opportunity to
respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence
presented against him.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 (iii) 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. (emphasis supplied)cdasiajur

Which one should be followed? Is a hearing (or conference) mandatory in cases

involving the dismissal of an employee? Can the apparent con ict between the law and
its IRR be reconciled?
At the outset, we reaf rm the time-honored doctrine that, in case of con ict, the
law prevails over the administrative regulations implementing it. 1 8 The authority to
promulgate implementing rules proceeds from the law itself. To be valid, a rule or
regulation must conform to and be consistent with the provisions of the enabling
statute. 1 9 As such, it cannot amend the law either by abridging or expanding its scope.
20

Article 277 (b) of the Labor Code provides that, in cases of termination for a just
cause, an employee must be given "ample opportunity to be heard and to defend
himself." Thus, the opportunity to be heard afforded by law to the employee is quali ed
by the word "ample" which ordinarily means "considerably more than adequate or
suf cient." 2 1 In this regard, the phrase "ample opportunity to be heard" can be
reasonably interpreted as extensive enough to cover actual hearing or conference. To
this extent, Section 2 (d), Rule I of the Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code
is in conformity with Article 277 (b).

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

Labor Code should not be taken to mean that holding an actual hearing or conference is
a condition sine qua non for compliance with the due process requirement in
termination of employment. The test for the fair procedure guaranteed under Article
277 (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 con ne 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 in exible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable
situation." 2 2
The standard for the hearing requirement, ample opportunity, is couched in
general language revealing the legislative intent to give some degree of exibility or
adaptability to meet the peculiarities of a given situation. To con ne it to a single rigid
proceeding such as a formal hearing will defeat its spirit. DAcaIE

Signi cantly, 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 satis ed 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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 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. 2 3 "To be heard" does not mean verbal argumentation
alone inasmuch as one may be heard just as effectively through written explanations,
submissions or pleadings. 2 4 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.
This Court has consistently ruled that the due process requirement in cases of
termination of employment does not require an actual or formal hearing. Thus, we
categorically declared in Skipper's United Pacific, Inc. v. Maguad: 2 5
The Labor Code does not, of course, require a formal or trial type
proceeding before an erring employee may be dismissed. (emphasis
supplied)

In Autobus Workers' Union v. NLRC, 2 6 we ruled:

The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of
due process. Due process of law simply means giving opportunity to be heard
before judgment is rendered. In fact, there is no violation of due process
even if no hearing was conducted, where the party was given a chance
to explain his side of the controversy . What is frowned upon is the denial of
the opportunity to be heard. cTECIA

xxx xxx xxx

A formal trial-type hearing is not even essential to due process. It is

enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to
explain their respective sides of the controversy and to present
supporting evidence on which a fair decision can be based. This type of
hearing is not even mandatory in cases of complaints lodged before the Labor
Arbiter. (emphasis supplied)

In Solid Development Corporation Workers Association v. Solid Development

Corporation, 2 7 we had the occasion to state:
[W]ell-settled is the dictum that the twin requirements of notice and hearing
constitute the essential elements of due process in the dismissal of employees. It
is a cardinal rule in our jurisdiction that the employer must furnish the employee
with two written notices before the termination of employment can be effected:
(1) the rst 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, on the
other hand, is complied with as long as there was an opportunity to be
heard, and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted.
In separate infraction reports, petitioners were both apprised of the particular acts
or omissions constituting the charges against them. They were also required to
submit their written explanation within 12 hours from receipt of the reports. Yet,
neither of them complied. Had they found the 12-hour period too short, they
should have requested for an extension of time. Further, notices of termination
were also sent to them informing them of the basis of their dismissal. In ne,
petitioners were given due process before they were dismissed. Even if no
hearing was conducted, the requirement of due process had been met
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 since they were accorded a chance to explain their side of the controversy.
(emphasis supplied)

Our holding in National Semiconductor HK Distribution, Ltd. v. NLRC 28 is of

similar import:
That the investigations conducted by petitioner may not be considered
formal or recorded hearings or investigations is immaterial. A formal or
trial type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due
process , the requirements of which are satis ed where the parties are afforded
fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy. It is
deemed suf cient for the employer to follow the natural sequence of notice,
hearing and judgment.

The above rulings are a clear recognition that the employer may provide an
employee with ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance
of a representative or counsel in ways other than a formal hearing. The employee can
be fully afforded a chance to respond to the charges against him, adduce his evidence
or rebut the evidence against him through a wide array of methods, verbal or written.
After receiving the rst notice apprising him of the charges against him, the
employee may submit a written explanation (which may be in the form of a letter,
memorandum, af davit or position paper) and offer evidence in support thereof, like
relevant company records (such as his 201 le and daily time records) and the sworn
statements of his witnesses. For this purpose, he may prepare his explanation
personally or with the assistance of a representative or counsel. He may also ask the
employer to provide him copy of records material to his defense. His written
explanation may also include a request that a formal hearing or conference be held. In
such a case, the conduct of a formal hearing or conference becomes mandatory, just as
it is where there exist substantial evidentiary disputes 2 9 or where company rules or
practice requires an actual hearing as part of employment pretermination procedure.
To this extent, we refine the decisions we have rendered so far on this point of law. AcSIDE

This interpretation of Section 2 (d), Rule I of the Implementing Rules of Book VI

of the Labor Code reasonably implements the "ample opportunity to be heard" standard
under Article 277 (b) of the Labor Code without unduly restricting the language of the
law or excessively burdening the employer. This not only respects the power vested in
the Secretary of Labor and Employment to promulgate rules and regulations that will
lay down the guidelines for the implementation of Article 277 (b). More importantly, this
is faithful to the mandate of Article 4 of the Labor Code that "[a]ll doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of [the Labor Code], including its
implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor."
In sum, the following are the guiding principles in connection with the hearing
requirement in dismissal cases:
(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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 (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. aIcETS

PETITIONERS WERE ILLEGALLY

SUSPENDED FOR 30 DAYS
An employee may be validly suspended by the employer for just cause provided
by law. Such suspension shall only be for a period of 30 days, after which the employee
shall either be reinstated or paid his wages during the extended period. 3 0
In this case, petitioners contended that they were not paid during the two 15-day
extensions, or a total of 30 days, of their preventive suspension. Respondents failed to
adduce evidence to the contrary. Thus, we uphold the ruling of the labor arbiter on this
point.
Where the dismissal was without just or authorized cause and there was no due
process, Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, mandates that the employee is
entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and full
backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other bene ts or their monetary equivalent
computed from the time the compensation was not paid up to the time of actual
reinstatement. 3 1 In this case, however, reinstatement is no longer possible because of
the length of time that has passed from the date of the incident to nal resolution. 3 2
Fourteen years have transpired from the time petitioners were wrongfully dismissed.
To order reinstatement at this juncture will no longer serve any prudent or practical
purpose. 3 3

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Court of

Appeals dated January 29, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 50536 nding that petitioners Felix
B. Perez and Amante G. Doria were not illegally dismissed but were not accorded due
process and were illegally suspended for 15 days, is SET ASIDE. The decision of the
labor arbiter dated December 27, 1995 in NLRC NCR CN. 11-06930-93 is hereby
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that petitioners should be paid their separation pay
in lieu of reinstatement.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Chico-
Nazario, Nachura, Leonardo-de Castro and Peralta, JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J., I certify that J. Martinez voted for the ponencia of J. Corona.
- RSP
Velasco, Jr., J., Pls. see separate concurring and dissenting opinion.
Brion, J., with concurring opinion.

Separate Opinions
VELASCO, JR. , J., concurring and dissenting :

I concur in my esteemed colleague's well-written ponencia, except in one issue,

to which I hereby register my dissent. EHScCA

In gist, the facts as contained in the ponencia show that Felix B. Perez and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Amante G. Doria were dismissed by the Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company
without a hearing or conference for a series of allegedly anomalous transactions.
The only issue covered by my dissent is, are Perez and Doria entitled to a hearing
or conference as mandated by Section 2 (b), Rule XXIII, Implementing Rules of Book V
of the Labor Code?
The ponencia resolved this in the negative and held that Sec. 2 (b), Rule XXIII,
Implementing Rules of Book V, 1 by requiring a hearing, went beyond the terms and
provisions of the Labor Code, particularly Article 277 (b) thereof that merely requires
the employer to provide employees with ample opportunity to be heard and to defend
themselves with the assistance of their representatives if they so desire. The ponencia,
however, conceded that 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. I submit that
the actual hearing or conference is mandatory in ALL dismissal cases for the following
reasons:
(1) Art. 277(b) of the Labor Code provides that:
(b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their
right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause and
without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the
employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated
a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall
afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the
assistance of his representative if he so desires in accordance with company
rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department
of Labor and Employment. Any decision taken by the employer shall be without
prejudice to the right of the worker to contest the validity or legality of his
dismissal by ling a complaint with the regional branch of the National Labor
Relations Commission. The burden of proving that the termination was for a valid
or authorized cause shall rest on the employer. (Emphasis supplied.) aDSAEI

The aforequoted provision states that employees are to be given "ample"

opportunity to be heard and defend themselves. However, the word "ample" is vague
and not de ned in the said provision. Since the meaning of this word is unclear, then it
should be given a liberal construction to favor labor. "Ample" means "considerably more
than adequate or suf cient." 2 Ample opportunity can be construed to be broad enough
to encompass an actual hearing or conference. To be sure, opportunity to be heard
does not exclude an actual or formal hearing since such requirement would grant more
than sufficient chance for an employee to be heard and adduce evidence. In this sense, I
believe there is no discrepancy between Art. 277 and the Implementing Rule in
question.
The Implementing Rules thus makes available for employees a considerably or
generously suf cient opportunity to defend themselves through a hearing or
conference. In Tanala v. NLRC, we said that:
With respect to the issue of whether petitioner was denied due process in the
administrative procedure entailed in his dismissal, we agree with the labor arbiter
that petitioner was indeed denied procedural due process therein. His dismissal
was not preceded by any notice of the charges against him and a hearing
thereon. The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the
essential elements of due process in cases of dismissal of employees.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 The purpose of the rst requirement is obviously to enable the employee to
defend himself against the charge preferred against him by presenting and
substantiating his version of the facts.

Contrary to the ndings of the NLRC, the notice of preventive suspension cannot
be considered as an adequate notice. Even the fact that petitioner submitted
a written explanation after the receipt of the order of suspension is not
the "ample opportunity to be heard" contemplated by law. Ample
opportunity to be heard is especially accorded to the employee sought
to be dismissed after he is informed of the charges in order to give him
an opportunity to refute such accusations levelled against him.
Furthermore, this Court has repeatedly held that to meet the requirements of due
process, the law requires that an employer must furnish the worker sought to be
dismissed with two written notices before termination of employment can be
legally effected, that is, (1) a notice which apprises the employee of the particular
acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent
notice, after due hearing , which informs the employee of the employer's
decision to dismiss him. 3 (Emphasis supplied.)

(2) The ponencia seems to underscore the absence of any mention of an "actual
hearing" in Art. 277 (b). It is conceded that there is no explicit mention of an actual
hearing or conference in said legal provision. As earlier discussed, the requisite hearing
is captured in the phrase "ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the
assistance of his representative if he so desires." Even if the phrase "actual hearing" is
not speci ed in Art. 277 (b), the same thing is true with respect to the second written
notice informing the employee of the employer's decision which is likewise unclear in
said provision. Thus, the fact that Art. 277 (b) does not expressly mention actual
hearing in Art. 277 (b) does not bar the Secretary of Labor from issuing a rule (Sec. 2 [d]
[ii], Rule I, Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code) implementing the
provision that what really is meant is an actual hearing or conference. It should be
noted that the Secretary of Labor also issued a rule on the need for a second written
notice on the decision rendered in the illegal dismissal proceedings despite the silence
of Art. 277 (b) on the need for a written notice of the employer's decision. SCETHa

(3) The majority opinion cites the rule in statutory construction that in case of
discrepancy between the basic law and its implementing rules, the basic law prevails. In
the case at bar, said principle does not apply because precisely there is no clear-cut
discrepancy between Art. 277 (b) of the Labor Code and Sec. 2 (b), Rule XXIII,
Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code. To the extent of being repetitive the
phrase "ample opportunity to be heard" can be construed to cover an actual hearing.
This way, Sec. 2 (b), Rule XXIII does not conflict with nor contravene Art. 277 (b).
(4) Art. 4 of the Labor Code states that "all doubts in the implementation and
interpretation of the provisions of [the Labor Code], including its implementing rules
and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor." Since the law itself invests the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) the power to promulgate rules and
regulations to set the standard guidelines for the realization of the provision, then the
Implementing Rules should be liberally construed to favor labor. The Implementing
Rules, being a product of such rule-making power, has the force and effect of law. Art.
277 of the Labor Code granted the DOLE the authority to develop the guidelines to
enforce the process. In accordance with the mandate of the law, the DOLE developed
Rule I, Sec. 2(d) of the Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code which provides
that:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 (d) 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 de ned in Article 282 of the
Labor Code:

(i) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or

grounds for termination, and giving said employee reasonable opportunity
within which to explain his side.
(ii) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the
assistance of counsel if he so desires is given opportunity to respond to
the charge, present his evidence, or rebut the evidence presented against
him.

(iii) 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 any case, the standards of due process contained in Sec. 2(b), Rule XXIII,
Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code, and now in Sec. 2 (d) (ii), Rule I,
Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code, do not go beyond the terms and
provisions of the Labor Code. The Implementing Rules merely encapsulates a vague
concept into a concrete idea. In what forum can an employer provide employees with
an ample opportunity to be heard and defend themselves with the assistance of a
representative? This situation can only take place in a formal hearing or conference
which the Implementing Rules provides. The employees may only be fully afforded a
chance to respond to the charges made against them, present their evidence, or rebut
the evidence presented against them in a formal hearing or conference. Therefore, in
my humble opinion, there is no discrepancy between the law and the rules
implementing the Labor Code. IHaSED

(5) In addition, the hearing or conference requirement in termination cases nds

support in the long standing jurisprudence in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations,
wherein we declared that the right to a hearing is one of the cardinal primary rights 4
which must be respected even in cases of administrative character. We held:
There are cardinal rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this
character. The rst of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the
right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit
evidence in support thereof. Not only must the party be given an opportunity to
present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he
asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented.

This Court has recognized even the right of students to a summary

proceeding , in which (a) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and
cause of any accusation against them; (b) they shall have the right to answer the
charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if they so desire; (c) they shall be
informed of the evidence against them; (d) they shall have the right to adduce evidence
in their own behalf; and (e) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating
committee or of cial designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.
5

If administrative cases recognized that the right to a hearing is a "cardinal

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 primary right" and students are afforded the opportunity to defend themselves by
allowing them to answer the charges through their counsel and by adducing their
evidence to rebut the charges, what more for employees or laborers in the private
sector who are speci cally protected by the Constitution's social justice provision? It
would be unjust to the laborers if they are not afforded the same chance given to
students or even to employees in administrative cases.
(6) Removing the right of employees to a hearing prior to termination would
deprive them the opportunity to adduce their evidence. Notice can be taken of the
limited opportunity given to the employees by the directive in the rst written notice
that embodies the charges. More often than not, the directive is only for the employees
to explain their side without affording them the right to present evidence. Furthermore,
a hearing gives employees the chance to hire the services of counsel whose presence
is bene cial to employees during hearings because the counsel knows the intricacies
of the law and the strategies to defend the client — something with which a lay person
is most assuredly not familiar. A mere rst notice is not suf cient enough for
employees to assemble evidence for their defense. Most often, the rst notice merely
serves as or is limited to a general notice which cites the company rules that were
allegedly violated by the employees without explaining in detail the facts and
circumstances pertinent to the charges and without attaching the pieces of evidence
supporting the same. Lastly, the holding of an actual hearing will prevent the railroading
of dismissal of employees as the employers are obliged to present convincing
evidence to support the charges. All in all, the advantages far outweigh the
disadvantages in holding an actual hearing. EHaASD

(7) The indispensability of a hearing is advantageous to both the employer and

the employee because they are given the opportunity to settle the dispute or resort to
the use of alternative dispute resolution to de ect the ling of cases with the NLRC and
later the courts. It is important that a hearing is prescribed by the law since this is the
best time that the possibility of a compromise agreement or a settlement can be
exhaustively discussed and entered into. During this hearing, the relations of the parties
may not be that strained and, therefore, they are more likely receptive to a compromise.
Once dismissal is ordered by the employer, the deteriorated relationship renders the
possibility of an amicable settlement almost nil. Thus, a hearing can help the parties
come up with a settlement that will bene t them and encourage an out-of-court
settlement which would be less expensive, creating a "win-win" situation for them. Of
course the compromise agreement, as a product of the settlement, should be
subscribed and sworn to before the labor official or arbiter.
(8) Recent holdings of this Court have explained the propriety and necessity of an
actual hearing or conference before an employee is dismissed. In King of Kings
Transport, Inc. v. Mamac, 6 reiterated in R.B. Michael Press v. Galit, 7 we explained that
the requirement of a hearing or conference is a necessary and indispensable element of
procedural due process in the termination of employees, thus:
To clarify, the following should be considered in terminating the services of
employees: AaSCTD

(1) The rst written notice to be served on the employees should contain the
speci c causes or grounds for termination against them, and a directive that the
employees are given the opportunity to submit their written explanation within a
reasonable period. "Reasonable opportunity" under the Omnibus Rules means
every kind of assistance that management must accord to the employees to
enable them to prepare adequately for their defense. This should be construed as
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 a period of at least ve (5) calendar days from receipt of the notice to give the
employees an opportunity to study the accusation against them, consult a union
of cial or lawyer, gather data and evidence, and decide on the defenses they will
raise against the complaint. Moreover, in order to enable the employees to
intelligently prepare their explanation and defenses, the notice should contain a
detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as basis for the
charge against the employees. A general description of the charge will not suffice.
Lastly, the notice should speci cally mention which company rules, if any, are
violated and/or which among the grounds under Art. 282 is being charged against
the employees.

(2) After serving the rst notice, the employers should schedule and conduct a
hearing or conference wherein the employees will be given the opportunity to: (1)
explain and clarify their defenses to the charge against them; (2) present evidence
in support of their defenses; and (3) rebut the evidence presented against them by
the management. During the hearing or conference, the employees are given the
chance to defend themselves personally, with the assistance of a representative
or counsel of their choice. Moreover, this conference or hearing could be used by
the parties as an opportunity to come to an amicable settlement.
(3) After determining that termination of employment is justi ed, 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. 8

(9) Lastly, a liberal interpretation of Art. 277 (b) of the Labor Code would be in
keeping with Art. XIII of the Constitution which dictates the promotion of social justice
and ordains full protection to labor. The basic tenet of social justice is that "those who
have less in life must have more in law." Social justice commands the protection by the
State of the needy and the less fortunate members of society. This command becomes
all the more rm in labor cases where security of tenure is also an issue. In Rance v.
NLRC, we declared that:
It is the policy of the state to assure the right of workers to "security of tenure"
(Article XIII, Sec. 3 of the New Constitution, Section 9, Article II of the 1973
Constitution). The guarantee is an act of social justice. When a person has no
property, his job may possibly be his only possession or means of livelihood.
Therefore, he should be protected against any arbitrary deprivation of his job.
Article 280 of the Labor Code has construed security of tenure as meaning that
"the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just
cause or when authorized by" the code (Bundoc v. People's Bank and Trust
Company, 103 SCRA 599 [1981]). Dismissal is not justi ed for being arbitrary
where the workers were denied due process (Reyes v. Philippine Duplicators, Inc.,
109 SCRA 489 [1981]) and a clear denial of due process, or constitutional right
must be safeguarded against at all times (De Leon v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 100 SCRA 691 [1980]). 9
Between an employer and an employee, the latter is oftentimes on the losing or
inferior position. Without the mandatory requirement of a hearing, employees may be
unjustly terminated from their work, effectively losing their means of livelihood. The
right of persons to their work is considered a property right which is well within the
meaning of the constitutional guarantee. 1 0 Depriving employees their job without due
process essentially amounts to a deprivation of property without due process. cTIESD

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 We have applied social justice even to cases of just dismissal to grant equitable
relief to laborers who were validly dismissed. We also termed social justice as
"compassionate" justice. 1 1 Thus, the State should always show compassion and afford
protection to those who are in most need — the laborers. Knowing that poverty and
gross inequality are among the major problems of our country, then laws and
procedures which have the aim of alleviating those problems should be liberally
construed and interpreted in favor of the underprivileged. Thus, social legislations, such
as the Labor Code, should be liberally construed to attain its laudable objectives. 1 2

BRION , J., concurring :

I fully concur with the ponencia of my esteemed colleague, Associate Justice

Renato C. Corona. I add these views on the speci c issue of whether actual hearing is a
mandatory requirement in a termination of employment situation.

The petitioners' position that a formal hearing should be an absolute requirement

whose absence signi es the non-observance of procedural due process is an unduly
strict view and is not at all what procedural due process requires. This is not the intent
behind the Labor Code whose pertinent provision reads:
ART. 277.
xxx xxx xxx

(b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their
right to be protected against dismissal except for a just or authorized cause and
without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the
employer shall furnish the workers whose employment is sought to be
terminated a written notice containing a statement of the causes for
termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard
and defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so
desires in accordance with company rules and regulations promulgated
pursuant to the guidelines set by the Department of Labor and Employment. Any
decision taken by the employer shall be without prejudice to the right of the
worker to contest the validity or legality of his dismissal by ling a complaint with
the regional branch of the National Labor Relations Commission. The burden of
proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the
employer. CTIDcA

The Secretary of Labor and Employment may suspend the effects of the
termination pending resolution of the dispute in the event of prima facie nding
by the appropriate of cial of the Department of Labor and Employment before
whom such dispute is pending that the termination may cause a serious labor
dispute or is in implementation of a mass layoff. (as amended by Republic Act
No. 6715)

Historical Roots
At its most basic, procedural due process is about fairness in the mode of
procedure to be followed. It is not a novel concept, but one that traces its roots in the
common law principle of natural justice.
Natural justice connotes the requirement that administrative tribunals, when
reaching a decision, must do so with procedural fairness. If they err, the superior courts
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 will step in to quash the decision by certiorari or prevent the error by a writ of
prohibition. 1 The requirement was initially applied in a purely judicial context, but was
subsequently extended to executive regulatory fact- nding, as the administrative
powers of the English justices of the peace were transferred to administrative bodies
that were required to adopt some of the procedures reminiscent of those used in a
courtroom. Natural justice was comprised of two main sub-rules: audi alteram partem 2
— that a person must know the case against him and be given an opportunity to answer
it; and nemo judex in sua cause debe esse 3 — the rule against bias. Still much later, the
natural justice principle gave rise to the duty to be fair to cover governmental decisions
which cannot be characterized as judicial or quasi-judicial in nature. 4
While the audi alteram partem rule provided for the right to be noti ed of the
case against him, the right to bring evidence, and to make argument — whether in the
traditional judicial or the administrative setting — common law maintained a distinction
between the two settings. "An administrative tribunal had a duty to act in good faith and
to listen fairly to both sides, but not to treat the question as if it were a trial. There
would be no need to examine under oath, nor even to examine witnesses at all. Any
other procedure could be utilized which would obtain the information required, as long
as the parties had an opportunity to know and to contradict anything which might be
prejudicial to their case." 5 cSEAHa

In the U.S., the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution 6 provides the
guarantee for procedural due process, and has used a general balancing formula to
identify the procedural guarantees appropriate to a particular context. 7 In Mathews v.
Eldridge, 8 Justice Powell articulated this approach when he said:
In recent years this Court increasingly has had occasion to consider the extent to
which due process requires an evidentiary hearing prior to the deprivation of some
type of property interest even if such hearing is provided thereafter. In only one
case, Goldberg v. Kelly, has the Court ruled that a hearing closely
approximating a judicial trial is necessary. In other cases requiring some
type of pretermination hearing as a matter of constitutional right, the Court has
spoken sparingly about the requisite procedures. [Our] decisions underscore the
truism that "[d]ue process, unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception
with a xed content, unrelated to time, place and circumstances. [Due process] is
exible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation
demands." Accordingly, the resolution of the issue whether the administrative
procedures provided here are constitutionally suf cient requires analysis of the
governmental and private interests that are affected. More precisely, our prior
decisions indicate that identi cation of the speci c dictates of due process
generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: rst, the private interest
that will be affected by the of cial action; second, the risk of an erroneous
deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value,
if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and nally, the
Government's interest, including the function involved and the scal and
administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement
would entail.

Thus, the U.S. approach is to calibrate the procedural processes to be observed in

administrative cases based on specifically defined parameters.
Signi cantly in the U.S., the same common law root that gave rise to the concept
of natural justice and the duty to be fair, branched out into the doctrine of fair
procedure applicable to speci c private sector actors due to their overwhelming
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 economic power within certain elds ( e.g., professional associations, unions, hospitals,
and insurance companies). The doctrine requires notice and hearing, 9 but to an extent
slightly less than procedural due process; thus, when an association has clearly given a
person the bene t of far more procedural protections than he would have been entitled
to from a government entity, he has received the bene t of fair procedure and has no
cause of action for the mildly adverse action that resulted. 1 0
Philippine Due Process Requirement
Article III, Section 1 of the Philippine Constitution contains the constitutional
guarantee against denial of due process, 1 1 and is a direct transplant from an American
root — the Bill of Rights of the American Constitution. 1 2 As in the U.S., our
jurisprudence has distinguished between the constitutional guarantee of due process
that applies to state action, and the statutory due process guarantee under the Labor
Code that applies to private employers. 1 3 The Labor Code provision, quoted above, is
implemented under the Rules Implementing the Labor Code which provides that —
(d) In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due
process shall be substantially observed: TCIDSa

For termination of employment based on just causes as de ned in Article 282 of

the Labor Code:

(i) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or

grounds for termination, and giving said employee reasonable opportunity
within which to explain his side.

(ii) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the
assistance of counsel, if he so desires, is given opportunity to respond to
the charge, present his evidence, or rebut the evidence presented against
him.
(iii) 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.

For termination of employment as de ned in Article 283 of the Labor Code, the
requirement of due process shall be deemed complied with upon service of a
written notice to the employee and the appropriate Regional Of ce of the
Department of Labor and Employment at least thirty days before effectivity of the
termination, specifying the ground or grounds for termination.

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 suf cient that a written notice is
served the employee within a reasonable time from the effective date of
termination. 1 4

Jurisprudence has expounded on the guarantee and its implementation by reiterating

that the employer must furnish the worker to be dismissed with two written notices
before termination of employment can be effected: a rst written notice that
informs the worker of the particular acts or omissions for which his or her dismissal is
sought, and a second written notice which informs the worker of the employer's
decision to dismiss him. 1 5 Between these two notices, the worker must be
afforded ample opportunity to be heard in the manner the ponencia has very
ably discussed. TCacIA

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 The Confusion and Submission
Apparently, confusion has resulted in construing what "ample opportunity to
be heard" requires because the implementing rules of the Labor Code themselves
require that there be an actual hearing despite the clear text of the Labor Code that
only requires ample opportunity to be heard.
I submit that in the absence of a clear legislative intent that what is intended is an
actual hearing, the Court cannot construe the statutory procedural due process
guaranty as an absolute requirement for an actual hearing in the way that at least two
cases, namely King of Kings of Transport, Inc. v. Mamac 1 6 and R.B. Michael Press v.
Galit 1 7 now require.

a. Historical Reason .
Procedural due process cannot be read completely dissociated from its roots.
While the concept of procedural fairness that it embodies originated as a requirement
in judicial proceedings, the concept has been extended to procedures that were not
strictly judicial as regulatory fact- nding was devolved and delegated to administrative
tribunals. The devolution was driven by need; it was beyond the capability of the courts
to attend to the ever-increasing demands of regulation as society became increasingly
complex. As discussed above, a trial-type procedure is not an absolute necessity in
administrative due process. In fact, in the U.S., not every administrative decision-making
requires a hearing. 1 8 As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in the Mathews ruling we
quoted above: "[d]ue process, unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with
a xed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances. [Due process] is exible
and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands. " 1 9
[Italics supplied] IAEcCT

b. Philippine Procedural Due Process Developments .

Our Constitution does not expressly de ne the principles that embody due
process, as it is a concept intended to counterbalance a exible power of state —
police power. Early on, jurisprudence has recognized distinctions between procedural
due process in judicial proceedings and in administrative proceedings.
In a long line of cases starting with Banco Español v. Palanca, 2 0 the
requirements of procedural due process in judicial proceedings have been de ned. 2 1
In these proceedings, the quantum of evidence that the prosecution must meet in
criminal cases is proof beyond reasonable doubt, 2 2 while in civil cases the standard
has been described as "preponderance of evidence". 2 3 The requirements of procedural
due process in administrative proceedings have been similarly de ned in the early case
of Ang Tibay v. CIR. 2 4 The proof required in these proceedings is the lower standard of
"substantial evidence". 2 5
The quantum of evidence required in these proceedings impacts on their hearing
requirements. While both judicial and administrative proceedings require a hearing and
the opportunity to be heard, they differ with respect to the hearing required before a
decision can be made. In criminal cases where a constitutional presumption of
innocence exists, procedural judicial due process requires that judgment be rendered
upon lawful hearing where factual issues are tested through direct and cross-
examination of witnesses to arrive at proof beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases,
evidentiary hearings are likewise a must to establish the required preponderance of
evidence. 2 6 Administrative due process, on the other hand, requires that the decision
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the
record and disclosed to the parties concerned. 2 7 Thus, substantial reasons justify the
variance in the hearing requirements for these proceedings.
c. Due Process in the Private Employment Setting .
Separately from the requirement of due process when State action is involved,
the Constitution also guarantees security of tenure to labor , 2 8 which the Labor
Code implements by requiring that there be a just or authorized cause before an
employer can terminate the services of a worker. 2 9 This is the equivalent of and what
would have satis ed substantive due process had a State action been involved. The
equivalent of procedural due process is detailed under Article 277 of the Labor
Code, heretofore quoted, which requires notice and ample opportunity to be heard, both
of which are eshed out in the Implementing Rules of Book VI and in Rule XXIII of
Department Order No. 9, Series of 1997, of the Department of Labor.
Thus, from the concept of due process being a limitation on state action, the
concept has been applied by statute in implementing the guarantee of security of
tenure in the private sector. In Serrano v. NLRC, 3 0 we had the occasion to draw the ne
distinction between constitutional due process that applies to governmental action,
and the due process requirement imposed by a statute as a limitation on the exercise
of private power. Noting the distinctions between constitutional due process and the
statutory duty imposed by the Labor Code, the Court thus decided in Agabon v. NLRC 3 1
to treat the effects of failure to comply differently. ETDSAc

d. No Actual Hearing Requirement in the Labor Code .

That an actual hearing in every case is not intended by the Labor Code in
dismissal situations is supported by its express wording that only requires an "ample
opportunity to be heard", not the "hearing or conference" that its implementing rules
require.
The "ample opportunity" required to be provided by the employer is similar in
character to the process required in administrative proceedings where, as explained
above, an actual hearing is not an absolute necessity. To be sure, it cannot refer to, or
be compared with, the requirements of a judicial proceeding whose strict demands
necessarily require a formal hearing.
"Judicial declarations are rich to the effect that 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. A formal or trial type hearing is not at all times and in
all circumstances essential to due process, the requirements of which are satis ed
where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side in
the controversy." 3 2 In Arboleda v. NLRC, 3 3 we held that:
The requirement of notice and hearing in termination cases does not connote full
adversarial proceedings as elucidated in numerous cases decided by this Court.
Actual adversarial proceedings become necessary only for clari cation or when
there is a need to propound searching questions to witnesses who give vague
testimonies. This is a procedural right that the employee must ask for since it is
not an inherent right, and summary proceedings may be conducted thereon.

To the same effect is the following statement of Mr. Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno,
albeit in a dissenting opinion, in Agabon: "[t]his is not to hold that a trial-type proceeding
is required to be conducted by employers. Hearings before the employers prior to the
dismissal are in the nature of and akin to administrative due process which is free from
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 the rigidity of certain procedural requirements", citing Mr. Justice Laurel's dictum in the
landmark Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations . We have even held in China Banking
Corporation v. Borromeo 3 4 that no formal administrative investigation is necessary in
the process of dismissing an employee where the employee expressly admitted his
infraction. All that is needed is to inform the employee of the ndings of management.
TCHcAE

The identity of the actor should not also be lost on us in considering the "ample
opportunity" requirement. Judicial and quasi-judicial processes are undertaken by the
state, while the dismissal action the Labor Code regulates is undertaken by a private
sector employer. A distinction between these actors ought to be recognized and given
a proper valuation in considering the processes required from each. Due process in the
private realm does not address an all-powerful State clothed with police power and the
powers of taxation and eminent domain; it merely addresses a private sector-employer
who, constitutionally, shares the same responsibility with the worker for industrial
peace, and who is also entitled to reasonable returns on investments and to expansion
and growth. 3 5 Proportionality with the power sought to be limited dictates that due
process in its exible signi cation be applied to a private sector dismissal situation,
ensuring only that there is fairness at all times so that the constitutional guarantee of
security of tenure is not defeated. Thus, the required processes in a private sector
dismissal situation should, at the most, be equivalent to those required in
administrative proceedings; whether an actual hearing would be required should
depend on the circumstances of each case.
Last but not the least, reasonableness and practicality dictate against an actual
hearing requirement in every case of dismissal. There are simply too many variables to
consider in the private sector dismissal situation — ranging from the circumstances of
the employer, those of the employee, the presence of a union, and the attendant
circumstances of the dismissal itself — so that a hard and fast actual hearing
requirement may already be unreasonable for being way beyond what the statutory
procedural due process requirement demands. Such a requirement can also
substantially tie-up management operations and defeat the ef ciency, growth and the
profits that management and employees mutually need.
To recapitulate, the "ample opportunity to be heard" the Labor Code expressly
requires does not mean an actual hearing in every dismissal action by the employer;
whether an actual hearing would be required depends on the circumstances of each
case as each particular situation demands. Thus, the identical rulings in King of Kings of
Transport, Inc. vs. Mamac 3 6 and R.B. Michael Press vs. Galit 3 7 that an actual hearing is
a mandatory requirement in employee dismissal should now be read with our present
ruling in mind. The Department of Labor and Employment should as well be on notice
that this ruling is the legally correct interpretation of Rule I, Section (2) (d) (ii) of Book VI
of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code. aSTECA

Footnotes

1. Records, pp. 70-71.

2. Id., pp. 72-73.

3. Id., pp. 74-75.

4. Id., p. 76.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 5. Id., p. 39.

6. Decision penned by Commissioner Ireneo B. Bernardo, and concurred in by Presiding

Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and Commissioner Joaquin A. Tanodra. TIADCc

7. Decision of the Court of Appeals, penned by Associate Justice (now retired Associate Justice
of the Supreme Court) Ruben T. Reyes, and concurred in by Associate Justices Renato C.
Dacudao and Mariano C. del Castillo of the Ninth Division of the Court of Appeals.
8. Rollo, p. 34.

9. Records, p. 107.

10. Commercial Motors Corporation v. Commissioners, et al., G.R. No. 14762, 10 December
1990, 192 SCRA 191, 197.

11. Santos v. NLRC, G.R. No. L-76991, October 28, 1988, 166 SCRA 759, 765. De Leon v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 52056, October 30, 1980, 100 SCRA 691, 700.

12. LABOR CODE, Book VI, Title 1, Art. 282 (c).

13. G.R. No. L-42724, 9 April 1985, 135 SCRA 569, 578.

14. Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 101527, 19 January 1993, 217 SCRA 237, 244-
245.
15. Starlite Plastic Industrial Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 78491, 16 March 1989, 171 SCRA 315,
324. TSIDEa

16. Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Book VI, Rule 1, Sec. 2 (a) and (c).
17. Section 2 (d), Rule I, Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code.

18. See Conte v. Palma, 332 Phil. 20 (1996) citing Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Garcia,
Jr., G.R. No. 115381, 23 December 1994, 239 SCRA 386.
19. Id. citing Lina Jr. v. Cariño, G.R. No. 100127, 23 April 1993, 221 SCRA 515.

20. Implementing rules and regulations may not enlarge, alter or restrict the provisions of the
law they seek to implement; they cannot engraft additional requirements not
contemplated by the legislature (Pilipinas Kao, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 423 Phil. 834
[2001]).
21. WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW COLLEGIATE INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE UNABRIDGED, p. 74, 1993 edition.

22. Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886 (1961).

23. Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 52789, 19 December 1980, 101 SCRA 752.

In the landmark case on administrative due process, Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations
(69 Phil. 635 [1940]), this Court laid down seven cardinal primary rights:
(1) The rst of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right of the
party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in
support thereof. . . . (2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his
case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the
tribunal must consider the evidence presented. . . .
24. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 168498, 16 June 2006, 491 SCRA 213.

25. G.R. No. 166363, 15 August 2006, 498 SCRA 639.

26. 353 Phil. 419 (1998).

27. G.R. No. 165995, 14 August 2007, 530 SCRA 132.

28. 353 Phil. 551 (1998).

29. See Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (Brennan J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part) citing Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974)
(Marshall J., dissenting). ASaTHc

30. Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Book V, Rule XXIII, Sec. 9, as amended by
Department of Labor and Employment Order No. 9 (1997).
31. Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, 17 November 2004, 442 SCRA 573, 610.

32. Panday v. NLRC, G.R. No. 67664, 20 May 1992, 209 SCRA 122, 126-127.
33. Sealand Service, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 90500, 5 October 1990, 190 SCRA 347, 355.

VELASCO, JR., J., concurring and dissenting:

1. Now only Sec. 2(d)(ii), Rule I, Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code remains, as
amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003. HDIATS

2. WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

UNABRIDGED 74 (1993).

3. G.R. No. 116588, January 24, 1996, 252 SCRA 314, 320-321.
4. 69 Phil. 635, 641-644 (1940).

5. Guzman v. National University, No. L-68288, July 11, 1986, 142 SCRA 699, 706-707.
6. G.R. No. 166208, June 29, 2007, 526 SCRA 116.

7. G.R. No. 153510, February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 23.

8. King of Kings Transport, Inc., supra at 125-126.

9. No. L-68147, June 30, 1988, 163 SCRA 279, 284-285. EcHIDT

10. Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. Court of Appeals, No. L-38482, June 18, 1976, 71
SCRA 470, 480.
11. Tanala, supra note 3, at 320.

12. Manahan v. Employees' Compensation Commission, No. L-44899, April 22, 1981, 104 SCRA
198, 202.
BRION, J., concurring:

1. See: Jones, D.P. and De Villars A., Principles of Administrative Law (1985 ed.), pp. 148-149.
aDSIHc

2. Literally, "let the other side be heard".

3. "No one can be the judge in his own cause".

4. Supra note 1, pp. 157-160, citing Ridge v. Baldwin, [1963] 2 All E.R. 66 (H.L.)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 5. Supra note 1, p. 200.
6. UNITED STATES Constitution, 14th Amendment.

7. See: Gunther, Constitutional Law, (11th ed.), pp. 583-585.

8. 425 U.S. 319 (1976).

9. See: Potvin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 22 Cal. 4th 1060 (2000).

10. Dougherty v. Haag, 165 Cal. App. 4th 315 (2008).

11. No person shall be denied the right to life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

12. Supra note 6.

13. Serrano v. NLRC, G.R. No. 117040, January 27, 2000, 323 SCRA 44; Agabon v. NLRC, G.R.
No. 158693, Nov. 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 573.

14. Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code, Rule 1, Section 2, as amended by
Department Order No. 10, series of 1997.
15. Tiu v. NLRC, G.R. No. 83433, November 12, 1992, 215 SCRA 540; see also: Serrano and
Agabon cases, supra note 13.
16. G.R. No. 166208, June 29, 2007, 526 SCRA 116.

17. G.R. No. 153510, February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 23.
18. Supra note 7.

19. Supra note 8.

20. 37 Phil. 921 (1918).

21. The requirements of due process in judicial proceedings are as follows: 1) an impartial
court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it; 2)
jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant and over the property
which is the subject matter of the proceeding; 3) an opportunity to be heard afforded to
the defendant; and 4) judgment rendered upon lawful hearing.

22. People v. Berroya, G.R. No. 122487, December 12, 1997, 283 SCRA 111.

23. Supreme Transliner, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125356, November 21, 2001,
370 SCRA 41.

24. 69 Phil. 635 (1940); the observance of due process in administrative proceedings requires
the following: (1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested to
present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof; (2) the tribunal must
consider the evidence presented; (3) the decision must be supported by evidence; (4) the
evidence must be substantial; (5) the decision must be rendered on the evidence present
at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected;
(6) the administrative body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of
a subordinate; and (7) the administrative body should, in all controversial questions,
render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the
various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered.

25. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 adequate to support a conclusion. See Domasig v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 118101, September 16, 1996, 261 SCRA 779.
ATHCac

26. See People v. Dapitan, G.R. No. 90625, May 23, 1991, 197 SCRA 378, citing People v.
Castillo, 76 Phil. 72 (1946); Banco Español de Filipino v. Palanca, supra at note 20;
Macabingkil v. Yatco, 21 SCRA 150 (1967); Apurillo v. Garciano, 28 SCRA 1054 (1969);
Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd. v. Enage, 49 SCRA 416 (1973); Lorenzana v.
Cayetano, 68 SCRA 485 (1975).
27. Cuenca v. Atas, G.R. No. 146214, October 5, 2007, 535 SCRA 48; Alliance of Democratic Free
Labor Organization v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 108625, March 11, 1996, 254 SCRA 565.
28. CONSTITUTION, Article XIII, Section 3, par. 2.
29. LABOR CODE, Article 279.
30. Supra note 13.
31. G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 573.

32. NEECO III v. NLRC, G.R. No. 157603, June 23, 2005, 461 SCRA 169.
33. G.R. No. 119503, February 11, 1999, 303 SCRA 38.
34. G.R. No. 156515, October 19, 2004, 440 SCRA 621.

35. CONSTITUTION, Article XIII, Section 3, pars. 3 and 4. AEIDTc

36. Supra note 16.

37. Supra note 17.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com