Scribd
Upload
315 views1 page

Electro System Industries Corp. vs. NLRC

1) This document discusses the requirements for a valid first notice in dismissal cases under Philippine labor law. 2) It states that the first notice must outright inform the employee that an investigation will be conducted regarding particularized charges that could result in dismissal if proven true. 3) The notice must contain a plain statement of the malfeasance or misfeasance charges and categorically state that dismissal will be the effect if the charges are proven, to afford the employee opportunity to defend themselves, as their employment is at stake.

Uploaded by

Jan Lorenzo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
315 views1 page

Electro System Industries Corp. vs. NLRC

1) This document discusses the requirements for a valid first notice in dismissal cases under Philippine labor law. 2) It states that the first notice must outright inform the employee that an investigation will be conducted regarding particularized charges that could result in dismissal if proven true. 3) The notice must contain a plain statement of the malfeasance or misfeasance charges and categorically state that dismissal will be the effect if the charges are proven, to afford the employee opportunity to defend themselves, as their employment is at stake.

Uploaded by

Jan Lorenzo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

ELECTRO SYSTEM INDUSTRIES CORPORATION,

vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and NOEL BALTAZAR A. SUMACULUB,

G.R. No. 165282 October 5, 2005

Also, in Maquiling v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.,10 it was stressed that the first notice must
inform outright the employee that an investigation will be conducted on the charges particularized
therein which, if proven, will result to his dismissal. Such notice must not only contain a plain statement
of the charges of malfeasance or misfeasance but must categorically state the effect on his employment
if the charges are proven to be true. The rationale for this rule was explained by the Court as follows:

This notice will afford the employee an opportunity to avail all defenses and exhaust all remedies to
refute the allegations hurled against him for what is at stake is his very life and limb his employment.
Otherwise, the employee may just disregard the notice as a warning without any disastrous
consequence to be anticipated. Absent such statement, the first notice falls short of the requirement of
due process. One’s work is everything, thus, it is not too exacting to impose this strict requirement on
the part of the employer before the dismissal process be validly effected. This is in consonance with the
rule 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.

In the instant case, the first notice issued by petitioner fell short of the requirement of the law because
it merely referred to the section of the company rule allegedly violated by private respondent. The
notice failed to specify the penalty for the charges which is dismissal, and to indicate the precise act or
omission which constituted as the ground for which dismissal is sought.

You might also like