Due Process and Substantive Evidence are Crucial in Upholding Employee Rights Against Illegal Dismissal

Gimalay v. Court of Appeals, 874 Phil. 627 (2020)

Imagine returning to your homeland after completing a successful overseas work assignment, only to find yourself suddenly terminated from your job without clear justification. This is not just a hypothetical scenario; it’s the reality faced by Domingo Gimalay, a mechanical technician whose case against Granite Services International, Inc. reached the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The central legal question in this case was whether Gimalay’s dismissal was valid and if the company had followed due process.

Domingo Gimalay was employed by Granite Services as a mechanical technician/rigger on a project-based contract that later transitioned to regular employment. After completing a two-month assignment in Ghana, Gimalay was dismissed upon his return to the Philippines, allegedly for violating safety protocols. The case traversed through various labor tribunals and courts, culminating in a Supreme Court decision that shed light on the importance of due process and substantive evidence in dismissal cases.

Legal Context: The Framework of Illegal Dismissal in the Philippines

In the Philippines, the right to security of tenure is enshrined in the Labor Code. Article 294 of the Labor Code mandates that an employee can only be dismissed for just or authorized causes, and the employer must follow the due process requirements set forth in the law. Just causes include serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duties, fraud or willful breach of trust, commission of a crime or offense, and other analogous causes.

Due process in dismissal cases involves two notices: a notice of the charges against the employee, and a notice of termination after a hearing or conference where the employee can explain their side. This is often referred to as the ‘twin-notice rule.’ The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the employer to demonstrate that the dismissal was for a valid reason and that due process was observed.

The case of Distribution & Control Products, Inc. v. Santos (813 Phil. 423, 2017) is pivotal, reinforcing that the employer must prove the validity of the dismissal. This case underscores that if doubt exists between the evidence presented by both parties, the scales of justice must tilt in favor of the employee.

Case Breakdown: The Journey of Domingo Gimalay’s Case

Domingo Gimalay’s journey began with his employment at Granite Services in 2004. Initially hired on a project basis, he was later made a regular member of the company’s work pool in 2007. His contract stipulated various assignments, including overseas projects, and a monthly retainer fee when not on assignment.

In January 2012, Gimalay was deployed to Ghana for a two-month contract. Upon his return to the Philippines in March 2012, he was accused of safety violations during his time in Ghana, including standing on a compressor casing, improper communication with a crane operator, and working without a safety harness. Granite Services terminated his employment shortly after.

The case moved through the labor tribunals, with the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruling in Gimalay’s favor, finding no substantial evidence to support the alleged safety violations. However, the Court of Appeals reversed these decisions, upholding the dismissal based on the evidence presented by Granite Services.

The Supreme Court, in its final ruling, disagreed with the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized the lack of concrete evidence supporting the charges against Gimalay:

‘As for the first infraction, no evidence other than Outage Excellence Leader Carruth’s e-mail and the termination letter was presented to show that petitioner indeed stood on top of the compressor. Would a reasonably prudent person accept these documents as sufficient to prove the charge and on the basis thereof dismiss the employee from work? Certainly not.’

The Court also noted the absence of procedural due process, as Granite Services failed to provide written notice of the infractions or conduct a proper investigation:

‘As for procedural due process, all three (3) tribunals below were unanimous in declaring that private respondents did not comply with the twin-notice rule.’

Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that Gimalay’s dismissal was illegal, entitling him to backwages and separation pay based on his monthly retainer fee, not his overseas salary, as he had completed his Ghana contract.

Practical Implications: Navigating Illegal Dismissal Claims

This ruling reinforces the importance of due process and substantive evidence in dismissal cases. Employers must ensure they have concrete evidence and follow the twin-notice rule to avoid claims of illegal dismissal. Employees, on the other hand, should be aware of their rights and the necessity of challenging dismissals that lack proper justification or due process.

Key Lessons:

• Employers must substantiate dismissal claims with clear, convincing evidence.
• The twin-notice rule must be strictly followed to ensure procedural due process.
• Employees should document their work and any interactions with management to defend against potential dismissal claims.
• Backwages and separation pay calculations should reflect the employee’s regular salary or retainer fee, not project-specific rates.

Frequently Asked Questions

What constitutes a just cause for dismissal in the Philippines?
Just causes include serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duties, fraud, and other analogous causes as defined by the Labor Code.

What is the twin-notice rule?
The twin-notice rule requires employers to provide a written notice of the charges against the employee and a subsequent notice of termination after a hearing or conference where the employee can explain their side.

How is backwages calculated in cases of illegal dismissal?
Backwages are calculated based on the employee’s regular salary or retainer fee, not project-specific rates, from the time of dismissal until reinstatement or the finality of the decision.

Can an employee be dismissed for a single safety violation?
While safety violations are serious, a single incident may not warrant dismissal unless it constitutes gross misconduct or endangers others significantly. The penalty must be proportionate to the offense.

What should an employee do if they believe their dismissal was illegal?
Employees should file a complaint with the appropriate labor tribunal, such as the Labor Arbiter, and seek legal counsel to ensure their rights are protected.

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