Validity of Notice to Explain in Employment Disciplinary Action

Below is a comprehensive discussion of the validity of a “Notice to Explain” (NTE) in the context of Philippine employment disciplinary action. This article aims to provide a thorough understanding of what the Notice to Explain is, its legal bases, procedural requirements under Philippine law, common pitfalls in drafting, relevant jurisprudence, and best practices for both employers and employees.

1. Overview of the Notice to Explain

The Notice to Explain (often referred to as a “show-cause notice”) is the first written notice an employer must issue to an employee who is alleged to have committed an infraction or offense. It forms part of the “due process” requirement under Philippine labor laws, specifically for disciplinary actions or dismissals based on “just causes.”

1.1 The Twin-Notice Rule

In Philippine labor law, the Supreme Court has long held that for a dismissal due to just cause to be valid, the employer must observe two notices:

  1. First Notice (Notice to Explain): This notice informs the employee of the specific allegations or charges against them and gives the employee a chance to prepare and submit an explanation or defense.
  2. Second Notice (Notice of Decision): After the employer has evaluated the employee’s explanation and conducted any necessary hearing or investigation, a second notice must be served to the employee stating the employer’s decision (e.g., whether the employee is found guilty or not, and if so, the corresponding penalty).

Failure to comply with either notice typically renders the termination procedurally defective and may expose the employer to liability for illegal dismissal, or at a minimum, to payment of nominal damages if the just cause is proven but procedural due process was not observed.

2. Legal Basis and Governing Laws

2.1 Philippine Labor Code

Although the Labor Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended) does not explicitly use the phrase “Notice to Explain,” it does mandate that an employee must be afforded due process before dismissal or disciplinary action. Article 297 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code provides the just causes for termination, such as serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duties, fraud, and commission of a crime against the employer or his immediate family, and analogous causes.

2.2 Supreme Court Decisions and Jurisprudence

Philippine jurisprudence has elaborated on the requirement of a Notice to Explain. The Supreme Court, in numerous cases (e.g., King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac, G.R. No. 166208, April 29, 2008), has underscored the importance of issuing the first notice containing:

  1. A detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that serve as grounds for the alleged infraction.
  2. A directive for the employee to submit an explanation within a reasonable period.
  3. An indication of the possible penalties.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that this first notice should not be pro forma; it must be sufficiently specific so that the employee can adequately defend themself.

2.3 DOLE Regulations (Department Orders)

The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) has issued regulations that provide guidelines on dismissal procedures. While Department Orders such as DOLE Department Order No. 147-15 (Series of 2015) focus on the requirement of due process, the central principle remains that a written notice specifying the charges is essential.

3. Core Elements of a Valid Notice to Explain

To be valid, a Notice to Explain must meet certain criteria:

  1. Specificity of Charges:

    • The notice should clearly enumerate the acts or omissions complained of. Vague allegations (e.g., “misconduct” without specifying dates, nature, or circumstances) are insufficient.
    • The employee must understand exactly what violation is alleged (e.g., violation of company policy, misconduct, insubordination, etc.).

  2. Reference to Company Policy (if any):

    • If the charge involves a breach of a company rule, code of conduct, or specific policy, these should be cited for clarity and fairness.

  3. Reasonable Period to Respond:

    • The employee must be given enough time to study the allegations and prepare a written explanation or defense. Although the law does not prescribe a fixed minimum (like “five days” in all instances), employers must ensure the period is fair and reasonable, considering the complexity of the charges.

  4. Statement on the Right to a Hearing (if applicable):

    • Though not mandatory in every instance to hold an actual face-to-face hearing, the employer must provide the employee an opportunity to present their side—whether in writing or in a hearing. The NTE should state when and where a hearing or conference may be set if the employee opts for it, or instruct the employee to submit a written explanation by a certain deadline.

  5. Indication of Possible Penalties (optional but prudent):

    • Best practice is to inform the employee of the possible consequences if found guilty (e.g., suspension, dismissal). While not always mandatory to specify the exact penalty, indicating the seriousness of the potential outcome is common and can help the employee prepare a suitable defense.

4. Common Pitfalls in Drafting the Notice to Explain

  1. Insufficient Particulars:

    • A notice that simply states “You are charged with misconduct; explain why you should not be dismissed” without explaining what the misconduct is, when and how it was committed, or what policy was violated, is defective.

  2. Unreasonable Deadline:

    • Giving an employee a mere few hours to respond to complex allegations may be considered unreasonable. The essence of due process includes a genuine opportunity for the employee to prepare a defense.

  3. Prejudgment or Language Suggesting Guilt:

    • The Notice to Explain should not use language that conclusively assumes the employee’s guilt. For instance, a statement like “Because you have already committed the offense, you are directed to explain why we should not fire you” can be interpreted as prejudgment.
    • The proper tone is to present the allegations as “alleged” or “reported” infractions, clarifying that no decision has yet been made pending the employee’s explanation.

  4. Non-Written or Merely Verbal Notice:

    • Due process for a valid disciplinary action generally requires a written notice. Issuing only verbal instructions or allegations is not sufficient under Philippine jurisprudence.

  5. Failure to Give the Employee a Chance to Be Heard:

    • If the notice does not genuinely allow for the employee’s side to be heard—whether in writing or in a hearing—it is invalid.

5. Effects of an Invalid Notice to Explain

If the Notice to Explain is found invalid or deficient, any penalty (including dismissal) subsequently imposed on the employee may be struck down for non-compliance with procedural due process. The usual consequences include:

  1. Illegal Dismissal:

    • If the substantive grounds are also found lacking or if procedural lapses are severe, the employee may be ordered reinstated with full backwages.

  2. Monetary Liability for the Employer:

    • In situations where the employer has a valid cause to terminate an employee (i.e., a “just cause” is proven) but commits procedural lapses in issuing the required notices, the Supreme Court may still rule that the dismissal is for a valid cause but order the employer to pay “nominal damages” for violating procedural due process.

  3. Reputational Risk and Company Morale:

    • Beyond legal consequences, improper or invalid notices may create distrust or resentment in the workplace, affecting morale and productivity.

6. The Role of Hearings or Investigations

A Notice to Explain often precedes a formal or informal hearing, depending on company policy and the nature of the alleged offense. Key points include:

  • Opportunity to Be Heard: The employee should be clearly informed in the NTE that they may present evidence or witnesses if needed.
  • Documenting the Proceedings: Employers should document any hearing via minutes or summaries, reflecting that the employee was genuinely given a chance to defend themself.
  • Consolidation of Evidence: Employers are advised to gather relevant documents, testimonies, and other evidence before issuing the second notice (the Notice of Decision).

7. Best Practices for Employers

  1. Use a Standardized Template:

    • A well-structured template helps ensure completeness of information (e.g., date, name of employee, specific allegations, reference to company policy, deadline to respond).

  2. Be Clear and Detailed:

    • State the alleged act, the approximate time/place of occurrence, witnesses (if any), and the specific company policy or Labor Code provision violated.

  3. Provide Ample Response Time:

    • Typically, giving at least 48–72 hours, or even 5 calendar days, is common, but adjust based on the complexity and urgency of the case.

  4. Offer a Hearing or Conference (When Appropriate):

    • Inform the employee that they may request a face-to-face meeting or clarificatory conference to explain their side. In bigger or more complex companies, a hearing panel is often constituted.

  5. Avoid Prejudgment:

    • Use neutral language (e.g., “We received information” or “It was reported”) rather than accusatory or conclusive language.

  6. Keep Records:

    • Keep copies of the NTE, the employee’s response, and documentation of any investigation or hearing.

8. Best Practices for Employees

  1. Respond Promptly:

    • Do not ignore an NTE. A failure or refusal to respond can be treated as a waiver of the right to be heard.

  2. Ask Clarifications (If Needed):

    • If the allegations are unclear, an employee may request more details or an extension if the period given is too short.

  3. Gather Evidence:

    • Present relevant documents, correspondence, witness statements, or any material that can refute or explain the charge.

  4. Maintain Professionalism:

    • Even if the allegations are upsetting or feel unjust, respond in a calm, clear manner. Emotional or hostile language in a formal explanation can distract from legitimate defenses.

  5. Seek Advice:

    • In more serious situations, consulting a union representative or a labor law practitioner can be wise.

9. Common Jurisprudential References

Below are a few illustrative Supreme Court cases emphasizing the importance of a valid Notice to Explain in disciplinary proceedings:

  1. King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac (G.R. No. 166208, April 29, 2008) – Emphasized the need for specificity in the first notice and the second notice stating the decision.
  2. Agabon v. NLRC (G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004) – Clarified the concept of the twin-notice requirement and introduced the payment of nominal damages for non-compliance with procedural due process if the dismissal was for a valid cause.
  3. Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Molon (G.R. No. 175002, August 14, 2009) – Reiterated that the first notice must apprise the employee of the acts complained of and provide an opportunity to explain, whereas the second notice must inform the employee of the employer’s decision.

10. Conclusion

The Notice to Explain is a cornerstone of procedural due process in Philippine employment law, ensuring that employees are not arbitrarily or unfairly disciplined or dismissed. To be valid, an NTE must state the specific charges, provide a reasonable period for response, avoid prejudgment, and enable the employee to present their side. Properly observing the twin-notice rule—starting with a valid and detailed Notice to Explain—protects both the employer (by reducing the likelihood of illegal dismissal findings) and the employee (by safeguarding the right to due process).

Both employers and employees are encouraged to maintain transparency and fairness throughout disciplinary proceedings. Employers should always remember that procedural due process is not a mere formality—it is a legally mandated principle aimed at ensuring just treatment in the workplace. Employees, for their part, should take each NTE seriously and respond comprehensively to assert their rights and explain their actions or defenses. By adhering to the guidelines set by Philippine labor law and jurisprudence, workplace disputes can be managed fairly and in accordance with the law.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login