LETTER TO A LAWYER

Dear Attorney,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to seek your guidance regarding a recent termination from my job. I was employed as a regular staff member and believed I was performing my responsibilities diligently. However, I found myself terminated under circumstances that I believe may have been unjust.

My direct manager, who was also lending money to other employees, allegedly used me as a middle person to facilitate loans to certain colleagues. Although I believed I was merely assisting in a matter that the company implicitly permitted—given that I saw no explicit company prohibition—I am now in a predicament because these lending activities have been cited as part of the reason for my termination.

Additionally, I was also selling chocolates in the workplace. I did not think this would be an issue since I observed others doing the same without any adverse repercussions. It appears that their similar activities did not result in termination or disciplinary action, which raises questions about potential unfair treatment or selective enforcement.

I would like to understand whether my termination might have violated any aspect of Philippine labor law, particularly regarding due process, just cause, or any other safeguards under the Labor Code of the Philippines. Any advice or legal insights on how I should proceed, whether through mediation, filing a complaint with the relevant government agencies, or exploring other legal remedies, would be deeply appreciated.

Thank you for your time and for considering my concerns. I look forward to your valued counsel.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Worker

COMPREHENSIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW

Disclaimer: The following discussion is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. For personalized guidance, individuals should consult a qualified lawyer who can assess the specific details of their case.

Introduction
In the Philippine setting, employer-employee relationships are governed primarily by the Labor Code of the Philippines (“Labor Code”), along with a variety of administrative regulations and jurisprudential precedents. Wrongful or illegal dismissal is a common concern in labor disputes and typically involves questions of whether the employer complied with both substantive and procedural due process requirements. Substantively, employers must prove a just or authorized cause for termination, while procedurally they must give the employee due notice and a chance to defend themselves.

The issue at hand involves two key elements: (1) a manager’s involvement in lending money through an employee, and (2) the selling of chocolates within the workplace—a practice that the employee believed was permissible or at least tolerated. The crux of the matter is whether these activities lawfully justify termination, and if so, whether the employer followed the correct process prior to dismissing the worker.
Overview of Relevant Philippine Labor Laws
- Labor Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended): Governs labor standards, including regulations on wages, working conditions, and employee terminations.
- Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code: Provides details on how the provisions of the Labor Code are to be carried out.
- Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Circulars and Advisories: May offer guidance on specific employment-related issues.
Central to this situation is whether an employer’s decision to dismiss an employee aligns with legally recognized causes under Article 297 (formerly Article 282) and Article 298 (formerly Article 283) of the Labor Code. If the employer lacks a valid cause or does not follow procedural due process, dismissal may be found illegal.
Just Causes for Termination (Article 297 of the Labor Code)
Just causes are grounds for termination that arise from wrongful acts or omissions by the employee. Common just causes include:
- Serious Misconduct or Willful Disobedience: An intentional and willful violation of a lawful company rule or directive.
- Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duties
- Fraud or Willful Breach of Trust: Situations where the employee’s position requires a high level of trust, and their misconduct undermines this trust.
- Commission of a Crime or Offense Against the Employer or Co-Employees
- Other Analogous Causes
The employer bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that one of these grounds exists and that it is directly attributable to the employee’s actions.
Authorized Causes for Termination (Article 298 of the Labor Code)
Authorized causes typically refer to economic or structural circumstances beyond the employee’s control, such as:
- Installation of Labor-Saving Devices
- Redundancy
- Retrenchment to Prevent Losses
- Closure or Cessation of Operations
- Disease (where continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to the employee’s health or co-employees)
If an employee is terminated for an authorized cause, the employer must provide notice to both the employee and the DOLE, as well as offer separation pay (unless the closure is due to serious losses).
Procedural Due Process in Termination
Beyond demonstrating a just or authorized cause, employers must observe procedural due process:
1. First Written Notice: The employer must inform the employee in writing of the particular acts or omissions on which the proposed dismissal is based.
2. Opportunity to Be Heard: The employee must be given a chance to respond, explain, or defend themselves. A hearing or conference is recommended, although not always mandatory if the employee is given sufficient opportunity to respond in writing.
3. Second Written Notice: After evaluating the explanations of the employee, the employer must issue a second written notice stating its decision to terminate the employment if that is the conclusion reached.
Failure to comply with either substantive or procedural due process can render a dismissal illegal. However, the degree of liability for the employer varies depending on whether the infraction is substantive or procedural.
Evaluation of the Manager’s Lending Activities
- Potential Policy Violations: If an internal policy prohibits employees or managers from engaging in private lending transactions within the workplace—especially if it causes distractions or conflicts of interest—employers may regulate or ban such activities. However, the policy must be known or reasonably discoverable by employees to form the basis of a valid cause for termination.
- Breach of Trust: If the employer can show that the manager’s use of an employee as a middle person for lending funds violated a clear policy or compromised the employer’s interest in some manner, it might be argued as a ground for willful breach of trust. But this typically applies to employees holding positions of trust and confidence.
- Selective Enforcement: If multiple employees engage in similar lending arrangements without punitive action, the question arises as to whether the employer applied policies uniformly. Selective enforcement, especially if the singled-out employee had no actual wrongdoing proven, might indicate bad faith or discrimination on the part of management.
Selling Goods in the Workplace
- Common Practice: Small-scale selling of items among colleagues is often tolerated in many Philippine workplaces as long as it does not disrupt normal operations.
- Written or Implied Company Policy: Some employers formalize policies restricting the sale of goods within company premises during working hours. If such a policy exists, it should be clearly disseminated to employees.
- Consistency of Enforcement: If other employees were likewise selling items on-site but were not disciplined or terminated, the dismissed employee may question whether the employer enforced the policy in an even-handed manner.
Potential Grounds to Question the Validity of the Termination
- Lack of Substantive Due Process: If the employer did not clearly demonstrate any just or authorized cause and merely dismissed the employee for reasons that appear arbitrary or are not linked to a valid ground under Articles 297 and 298.
- Lack of Procedural Due Process: Even if the employer arguably had a legitimate cause, skipping the two-notice rule or denying the employee an opportunity to be heard violates procedural due process.
- Discrimination or Retaliation: If the termination appears to be influenced by discrimination or retaliation, such as singling out an employee who engaged in the same activity as others, it might be deemed illegal.
Remedies in Case of Illegal Dismissal
When a dismissal is found to be illegal, employees in the Philippines typically have several remedies available:
- Reinstatement: The employee is restored to their former position without loss of seniority rights.
- Payment of Full Back Wages: Covers the period from the date of dismissal until actual reinstatement.
- Separation Pay in Lieu of Reinstatement: If reinstatement is no longer feasible due to strained relations or other valid reasons, the employee may opt for separation pay, calculated based on their length of service.
- Damages: In certain cases, moral or exemplary damages may be awarded if the employer’s actions were attended by bad faith or malice. Attorney’s fees may also be awarded at the court’s discretion.
Role of Philippine Government Agencies

Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE): Provides avenues for conciliation and mediation, particularly through the Single Entry Approach (SEnA).
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC): Has quasi-judicial powers to hear and decide labor disputes, including illegal dismissal cases.
Voluntary Arbitration: If the company is covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that provides for arbitration, disputes can be resolved through an agreed-upon arbitration process.

Jurisprudential Precedents
Over the years, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has decided numerous cases that provide guidance on illegal dismissal. Common threads in jurisprudence affirm that:
The employer must always prove by substantial evidence the validity of the dismissal.
Any ambiguity or doubt is typically resolved in favor of the employee.
Consistency in company rules and uniformity in enforcement are crucial to upholding the dismissal’s legality.
Procedural requirements must be strictly followed to avoid liability for improper termination.
Constructive Dismissal
Though not explicitly alleged in your scenario, it is worth mentioning that constructive dismissal occurs when an employer commits an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain that effectively forces the employee to resign. While your case involves an actual termination, if an employer’s behavior was so severe that it compromised the employee’s dignity or effectively compelled them to relinquish employment, it might be deemed constructive dismissal.
Validity of Internal Company Policies
Employers generally have the prerogative to implement policies concerning employee conduct within the premises, including prohibitions on solicitation or the unauthorized sale of goods. For these policies to be enforceable, they must be:

Lawful and not contrary to existing labor regulations.
Communicated clearly to employees.
Consistently and fairly applied.

A key issue in your case involves whether the rule, if any, was applied in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner, particularly since other employees allegedly engaged in similar activities without incurring sanctions.

Manager’s Accountability and Company Liability
If the manager’s lending activities were unauthorized by the company, the manager, rather than the employee, could be primarily at fault, especially if the employee acted in good faith without knowledge of any wrongdoing. If the company is fully aware of the manager’s conduct yet chooses to terminate the employee alone, questions may arise about fairness and consistent application of disciplinary measures.
Possible Avenues of Resolution

Internal Grievance Mechanisms: Check if the company has an established process for appealing disciplinary actions.
Mediation at DOLE (Single Entry Approach): If an internal resolution is not feasible, the employee may file a Request for Assistance at the nearest DOLE office.
Filing a Labor Case before the NLRC: If mediation fails, filing an illegal dismissal complaint or a complaint for monetary claims is the next step.
Private Settlement: In some cases, parties reach an amicable settlement to avoid prolonged litigation.

Burden of Proof
In termination disputes, the employer has the burden of proving by substantial evidence that the dismissal was legal. This is a higher standard than mere preponderance but lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the employer fails to meet this standard, the dismissal will be deemed illegal.
Impact of Managerial Discretion
Managers do exercise broad discretion in supervising employees. Nevertheless, that discretion is not absolute and must be aligned with company policy, the Labor Code, and fundamental principles of fairness. Termination arising out of personal motivations or vendettas may be considered invalid.
Damage Control and Future Measures

Documentation: It is important to preserve any documentation, such as company memos, written warnings, or e-mails regarding lending practices or the sale of goods.
Witness Statements: If other employees can attest to having engaged in the same or similar activities without penalty, their testimonies may help demonstrate inconsistent policy enforcement.
Legal Consultation: Engaging a skilled labor lawyer is critical in evaluating the nuances of the case, gathering evidence, and determining the best legal course of action.

Potential Criminal Angle
Under Philippine law, purely labor disputes typically do not equate to criminal liability unless there is clear evidence of wrongdoing that violates criminal statutes (e.g., theft, fraud, estafa). Lending money or selling goods, per se, is not criminal. However, if an employee was coerced or manipulated, or if there was misappropriation of funds, separate legal provisions may become relevant.
Conclusion
The termination of an employee under uncertain or seemingly arbitrary circumstances raises concerns under Philippine labor law. Employers must establish and prove a valid cause for dismissal—one that aligns with the just or authorized causes in the Labor Code—and must adhere to procedural due process. Where an employee’s activities, such as small-scale selling or facilitating the manager’s loans, were tolerated or similarly performed by others without reprisal, it calls into question the equity and lawfulness of a single targeted dismissal.

Ultimately, whether a dismissal is legal or illegal depends on the unique facts of the case, the employer’s formal policies, and the procedures followed in effecting the termination. Employees who suspect unlawful dismissal have recourse to internal grievance mechanisms, DOLE interventions, and potentially filing a labor complaint at the NLRC. If found illegal, the employee is generally entitled to reinstatement and payment of back wages or, in certain circumstances, separation pay plus damages.

In this situation, the employee’s best recourse is to gather all relevant evidence, including written communications from management, coworker testimonies, and any documentation of internal rules or policies. With such evidence, a labor lawyer can provide a clear roadmap—whether this entails filing a complaint for illegal dismissal, seeking reinstatement and back wages, or negotiating a settlement. It is critical to act promptly, as labor laws often have strict prescriptive periods for filing complaints.

This legal discussion is intended to provide a broad overview of Philippine labor laws relevant to the described scenario. For a precise evaluation and legal strategy, one should consult a qualified lawyer who can review all the specifics and provide comprehensive legal advice.