Verbal notice of dismissal
To constitute valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must concur: the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause; and the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.
Petitioner Allan John Uy Reyes filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondent Global Beer Below Zero, Inc. Both the Labor Arbiter (LA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) found for petitioner.
Respondent filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition for certiorari.
The CA reversed the decision of the NLRC. It held that aside from petitioner’s bare assertion that he was verbally terminated from employment by Co Say, no corroborative and competent evidence was adduced to substantiate his claim that he was illegally dismissed. It found that there was no overt or positive act on the part of respondent Global proving that it had dismissed petitioner.
Did the CA commit a reversible error?
Ruling: Yes.
Verbal notice of termination can hardly be considered as valid or legal.
To constitute valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must concur: the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause; and the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.
In justifying that such verbal command not to report for work from respondent Global’s vice president for operations Co Say as not enough to be construed as overt acts of dismissal, the CA cited the case of Noblejas v. Italian Maritime Academy Phils., Inc., 735 Phil. 713 (2014).
In the said case, an employee filed an illegal dismissal case after the secretary of the company’s managing director told him, “No, you better pack up all your things now and go, you are now dismissed and you are no longer part of this office — clearly, you are terminated from this day on.”
This Court then ruled in that case that there was no dismissal to speak of because the secretary’s words were not enough to be construed as overt acts of dismissal. Be that as it may, the factual antecedents of that case is different in this case.
In the present case, the one who verbally directed petitioner to no longer report for work was his immediate or direct supervisor, the vice president for operations, who has the capacity and authority to terminate petitioner’s services, while in Noblejas, the one who gave the instruction was merely the secretary of the company’s managing director.
Hence, in Noblejas, this Court found it necessary that the employee should have clarified the statement of the secretary from his superiors before the same employee instituted an illegal dismissal case.
In the present case, Co Say’s verbal instruction, being petitioner Reyes’ immediate supervisor, was authoritative, therefore, petitioner Reyes was not amiss in thinking that his employment has indeed already been terminated. (Peralta, J., SC 2nd Division, Allan John Uy Reyes vs. Global Beer Below Zero, Inc., G.R. No. 222816, Oct. 04, 2017).