Key Takeaway: Balancing Just Cause and Procedural Fairness in Employee Dismissals

University of the Cordilleras v. Lacanaria, G.R. No. 223665, September 27, 2021

Imagine a classroom where a student collapses during a performance, and the instructor’s response leads to a legal battle over employment rights. This scenario unfolded at the University of the Cordilleras, sparking a significant Supreme Court case that delves into the nuances of serious misconduct and procedural due process in employee terminations. The central issue was whether the university’s decision to dismiss a professor was justified and legally sound, highlighting the delicate balance between an employer’s right to discipline and an employee’s right to fairness.

The case involved Benedicto Lacanaria, a professor who was dismissed after a controversial incident with a student, Rafael Flores. During a class presentation, Flores, who was ill, collapsed but was compelled by Lacanaria to continue. Lacanaria’s subsequent remarks and actions led to his dismissal, which he contested on the grounds of lack of due process. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case offers critical insights into the legal standards governing employment terminations in the Philippines.

Legal Context: Understanding Serious Misconduct and Due Process

In the realm of Philippine labor law, the concept of serious misconduct as a ground for dismissal is governed by Article 297 of the Labor Code, which states that an employer may terminate employment for serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee in connection with their work. Serious misconduct must be of a grave and aggravated character, connected to the employee’s work, and performed with wrongful intent.

Procedural due process, on the other hand, is a fundamental right enshrined in the Labor Code and its implementing rules. It requires employers to provide two notices to the employee: the first notice detailing the charges and allowing the employee to respond, and the second notice informing them of the decision to terminate. The Supreme Court has emphasized that while a formal hearing is not always necessary, the employee must be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

For example, if an employee is accused of theft at their workplace, the employer must not only have substantial evidence to prove the misconduct but also follow the correct procedure by notifying the employee and giving them a chance to defend themselves. This ensures that the employee’s rights are protected, even in cases of serious misconduct.

Key provisions from the Labor Code relevant to this case include:

Article 297 [282] (a) of the Labor Code: ‘An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work…’

Case Breakdown: The Journey of Lacanaria’s Dismissal

The case began when Rafael Flores, a student at the University of the Cordilleras, collapsed during a class presentation due to illness. Despite his condition, Professor Benedicto Lacanaria instructed him to continue, later making insensitive remarks. This led to Flores filing a complaint against Lacanaria, triggering an investigation by the university.

The university’s grievance committee conducted hearings, but Lacanaria claimed he was not properly notified. Despite his absence, the committee recommended his dismissal, which was upheld by the university’s administration. Lacanaria challenged this decision through the labor tribunals, arguing that he was denied due process.

The Executive Labor Arbiter (ELA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) found that Lacanaria’s actions constituted serious misconduct and upheld his dismissal. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, citing a lack of due process and ordering Lacanaria’s reinstatement.

The Supreme Court, in its final ruling, agreed that Lacanaria’s actions constituted serious misconduct. The Court highlighted:

‘Misconduct involves the transgression of some established and definite rule or action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.’

However, the Court also found procedural lapses in the university’s handling of the case. Lacanaria was not given proper notice of the hearings, and the university failed to follow its own grievance procedure. The Court noted:

‘The Charge Sheet with Notice of Investigation charged Lacanaria with serious misconduct and a violation of the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers then enumerated the imposable penalties without however specifying which provisions were violated.’

Despite these procedural errors, the Court upheld the dismissal on the grounds of just cause but awarded Lacanaria nominal damages for the lack of due process.

Practical Implications: Lessons for Employers and Employees

This ruling underscores the importance of both substantive and procedural due process in employment terminations. Employers must ensure they have substantial evidence of misconduct and follow proper procedures to avoid legal challenges. For employees, understanding their rights to due process can be crucial in contesting unfair dismissals.

Businesses should review their disciplinary policies to ensure compliance with labor laws, particularly in documenting and notifying employees of charges and hearings. Employees should be aware of their rights to respond to allegations and seek legal advice if they believe their termination was unjust.

Key Lessons:

• Employers must substantiate claims of serious misconduct with substantial evidence.
• Procedural due process is non-negotiable; employers must provide proper notices and opportunities for employees to defend themselves.
• Employees should document interactions and seek legal counsel if they believe their rights have been violated.

Frequently Asked Questions

What constitutes serious misconduct in the workplace?

Serious misconduct involves a grave and aggravated act connected to the employee’s work, performed with wrongful intent. Examples include theft, fraud, or actions that harm the employer’s business or reputation.

How can an employer ensure due process in termination?

Employers must provide two notices: one detailing the charges and allowing the employee to respond, and another informing them of the termination decision. Additionally, a hearing or opportunity to be heard is essential.

Can an employee be dismissed without a formal hearing?

Yes, but the employee must still be given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the charges, which can be through written explanations or submissions.

What are the consequences of failing to follow due process?

While the dismissal may still be upheld if there is just cause, the employer may be liable for nominal damages for failing to observe procedural due process.

How can employees protect themselves from unfair dismissal?

Employees should document all interactions with their employer, especially during disciplinary proceedings, and seek legal advice if they believe their termination was unjust.

ASG Law specializes in labor and employment law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.