WON the notice was proper

It is respectfully submitted that the respondent afforded and complied

with the two-notice rule under the Labor Code.
For termination of employment based on just causes, procedural due
process requires that the employee be given the benefit of the so-called twinnotice and hearing, as follows:
1. First notice: Notice to Explain (NTE) or order to show cause. A written
notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for
termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity
within which to explain his side.

2. Hearing or formal investigation. A hearing or conference during which

the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the
employee so desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge,
present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him.

3. Second notice: Notice of decision. 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.1

The

reasonable

period

within

which

an

employee

being

cited

administratively should submit his written explanation is five (5) calendar days
from receipt of the notice to give him an opportunity to study the accusation
against him, consult a union official or lawyer, gather data and evidence, and
decide on the defenses he will raise against the complaint.2

First Notice
On October 5, 2007, Hannah Marin filed an incident report that Charles
V. Andrews sexually harassed her. Acting upon the said report, an investigation
was conducted by the management and a notice to explain was sent via
registered mail to Andrews last known address on October 26, 2007. Andrews
was directed to respond to said notice on or before October 31, 2007 or within
five (5) calendar days. However, without any justifiable reason, Andrews did not

1 Art. 277[b] and Sec 2, Rule I, Book VI, IRR)

2 King of Kings Transport vs. Mamac, G.R. no. 166208

respond to the said notice sent to him. In utter disobedience, he did not report
to office as directed.

The sending of notice to Andrews last known address is in accordance

with law. In case of termination, the notices should be served on the employees
last known address.3

Hearing

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.4 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 ones side.5
3 Section 2, Rule I, Book VI, Rules to implement the Labor Code, as amended by Art III, Department
Order No. 10, Series of 1997; Agabon vs. NLRC, Nov 17, 2004; Premiere Development Bank vs. NLRC,
July 23, 1998

4 FELIX B. PEREZ and AMANTE G. DORIA vs. PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE COMPANY
and JOSE LUIS SANTIAGO, G.R. No. 152048

5 Ibid

Andrews was afforded all the opportunity to respond, present his evidence
or rebut the evidence presented against him. The failure of Andrews, in the
absence of any justifiable reason, to reply to said notice can only be imputed
against him. The respondent company has given him sufficient and reasonable
period. His inaction is a clear of showing of his refusal to cooperate with the
investigation. By such refusal, he is deemed to have waived his right to defend
himself.6 Thus, he cannot now claim denial of his right to due process.

Second Notice
The employer is mandated to immediately notify a worker in writing of his
decision to dismiss him stating clearly the reasons therefor.7 The decision is
usually set forth in the second notice required under the law- the so called
termination
justifications

noticefor

informing

his

the

severance

employee

from

the

employment.8

6 Leonardo vs NLRC, June 16, 2000, G.R. no. 125303

7 Section 6, Rule XIV, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code
8 Bondoc vs. NLRC, July 28m 1997, 276 SCRA 288

of

factual
This

is

and

legal

after

due

considerations of all circumstances and grounds are established to justify the

employees termination.
Like the first notice, the second notice was satisfactorily complied with by
the respondent. It was established based on substantial evidence that Andrews
is guilty of sexually harassing Marin. Thus, it was only proper and lawful, as a
meter of course, to send him the second notice terminating his employment.
The notice of termination was sent to Andrews last known address. Indeed, he
was reasonably apprised as to his termination.
In view of the foregoing, the twin notice was complied with by the
respondent company. There was strict adherence to the provisions set forth by
no less than the Labor Code.