Notice to explain
Dear Atty. Kathy,
I was wrongly implicated in a fraudulent scheme at work. The HR officer tried to issue me a notice to explain. However, after getting a copy of the notice to explain and reading it, I only confirmed that the charges against me were not fair, so I refused to acknowledge receipt of the notice to explain.
I saw the HR officer write on their copy of the notice to explain that I refused to acknowledge receipt of my copy. I was therefore surprised when I suddenly received a notice terminating my employment.
Is this not illegal for not following due process since they did not validly serve the notice to explain to me?
Everett Dear Everett,
As a rule, the employer is required to furnish the employee with two written notices before termination of employment can be effected: a first written notice that informs the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his or her dismissal is sought, and a second written notice which informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him.
Anent the second notice, the written notice of termination should indicate that: (a) all circumstances involving the charge against the employees have been considered; and (b) grounds have been established to justify the severance of their employment.
Based on your narration, it appears that you received a copy of the notice to explain, but only refused to acknowledge receipt of the same. You also mentioned that the HR Officer annotated their copy of the notice to explain the fact that you refused to acknowledge receipt of the same.
Such notation is a substantial piece of evidence proving that the notice to explain was validly served upon you. Thus, based solely on the above, it appears that your former employer exercised procedural due process under Philippine labor laws and jurisprudence and that the notice to explain was validly served upon you despite the fact of your refusal to acknowledge receipt of the same.
(Systems and Plans Integrator and Development Corporation, et al. versus Michelle C. Ballesteros, G.R. 217119, 25 April 2022)