Dear Attorney,

Good morning! I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to seek legal advice regarding a situation at my workplace. Recently, we had an administrative hearing related to a concern in my department regarding the holding of company funds, a policy violation I am allegedly involved in. However, I felt that the hearing did not meet the standards of what I understand as "due process."

Specifically, my concern is that one of the employees involved in the issue was present during the hearing, which made me uncomfortable and unsure of the fairness and impartiality of the process. I felt that this presence may have influenced the outcome of the hearing or at least created an impression of bias.

I would like to understand if my concern is valid from a legal standpoint. Does the presence of another employee involved in the issue during such a hearing violate due process? How can I ensure that my rights as an employee are protected in this scenario? What steps can I take to ensure that proper legal procedure is followed?

I hope you can provide me with clarity on this matter, specifically in terms of Philippine labor laws and due process in the workplace. I am also seeking guidance on whether I can take further action should I feel that my rights have been compromised.

Thank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Employee

Due Process in Administrative Hearings Under Philippine Labor Law

In the Philippines, labor relations are governed by a combination of the Labor Code, jurisprudence, and administrative regulations. These laws ensure that both the employer and the employee are afforded protection and rights in cases of disputes, particularly when there is an accusation of misconduct or policy violation. Among these rights is the right to due process, which is fundamental when administrative hearings are conducted in the workplace.

Due process in labor cases is of particular importance because it strikes a balance between the rights of the employee and the employer’s prerogative to discipline its workforce. The following discussion explores the concept of due process in the context of administrative hearings in the workplace and the specific concern you have raised about the presence of another employee during the hearing.

1. Concept of Due Process in the Workplace

In general, due process refers to the legal requirement that an individual must be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to accusations or charges made against them. In the context of the workplace, due process in the Philippines means that an employer cannot simply terminate or impose disciplinary actions on an employee without giving them a proper chance to explain their side.

There are two forms of due process under Philippine labor law:

Substantive Due Process: This involves the fairness of the reason or cause for termination or disciplinary action. The employer must have a valid and just cause to discipline or dismiss an employee. Just causes for termination include serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duties, and fraud, among others. These are defined under Article 297 of the Labor Code of the Philippines.
Procedural Due Process: This refers to the proper steps an employer must take before imposing disciplinary action. It consists of two elements:
1. Notice and Hearing: The employee must be given two notices. First, a notice to explain (NTE) must be served, which gives the employee the opportunity to respond to the charges. The second notice comes after the hearing and the evaluation of the employee’s explanation, which informs the employee of the decision.
2. Opportunity to be Heard: Employees must be given a fair chance to defend themselves, which generally includes a hearing or the opportunity to submit a written explanation.

2. Administrative Hearings as Part of Procedural Due Process

In your case, you mentioned that an administrative hearing was conducted. An administrative hearing is a fundamental part of procedural due process. It is an avenue where the employer presents evidence of the alleged violation and the employee is given the chance to refute the claims or explain the circumstances. The goal of the hearing is to allow both parties to present their side and for the employer to make an informed decision based on the merits of the case.

While hearings are not always mandatory in minor infractions, they become crucial in cases involving severe charges, such as those related to dishonesty, theft, or violations that involve financial matters, like your situation concerning the holding of money.

3. The Presence of Another Employee Involved in the Hearing

You raised a significant concern about the presence of another employee who was involved in the incident during the hearing. Under Philippine labor jurisprudence, due process requires impartiality, fairness, and the absence of bias in administrative proceedings. The presence of other employees, especially those who may have a stake in the outcome of the hearing, could potentially compromise the neutrality of the proceedings.

Possible Violations of Due Process

Violation of Privacy and Confidentiality: Hearings are typically confidential, and only parties directly involved in the investigation or who can provide material testimony should be present. If the employee present was not essential to the proceedings or their presence was not adequately justified, this could be seen as a breach of your right to confidentiality.
Impartiality of the Hearing: The concept of "due process" in labor cases mandates that the hearing be conducted by an impartial and unbiased tribunal. If the other employee's presence influenced the decision-making process or if their involvement created an appearance of bias, this may raise a red flag regarding the fairness of the hearing. A prejudiced hearing could result in the employer’s failure to meet the standard of due process.

Case Law and Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regulations

Jurisprudence has underscored that due process does not necessarily require a formal trial-type hearing. However, the employee’s right to a fair hearing means that the process should be free from undue influence. For instance, in Perez v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co. (G.R. No. 152048), the Supreme Court reiterated that administrative hearings must not be tainted by any form of bias or prejudice. The hearing should give both the employer and employee an opportunity to be heard fairly and without intimidation.

Furthermore, DOLE's Department Order No. 147-15, which outlines the guidelines on labor standards enforcement, emphasizes that procedural due process requires not only notice and hearing but also the guarantee that the proceedings are conducted in a manner that ensures impartiality and fairness.

4. Ensuring Protection of Your Rights

If you believe that your right to due process was compromised, you have several options to protect yourself:

Seek Clarification from HR or Management: You may first request clarification on why the other employee was present during the hearing. Employers are generally required to explain the procedure, including the involvement of third parties, if any.
Document the Proceedings: Take note of any irregularities during the hearing, including the presence of the other employee and how it might have influenced the process. Documentation will be crucial should you decide to file a formal complaint.
File a Complaint with the DOLE: If you feel that the administrative process was unfair, you may lodge a formal complaint with the DOLE. The Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over disputes involving termination and disciplinary actions, and it can review whether procedural due process was followed.
Legal Recourse: If administrative remedies fail, you may take legal action by filing a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC is empowered to adjudicate on matters of illegal dismissal and disputes concerning disciplinary actions. The Commission will evaluate whether the employer adhered to both substantive and procedural due process.

5. Best Practices for Employers: Ensuring a Fair Hearing

To ensure that future administrative hearings are compliant with labor law, employers should adhere to the following best practices:

Limit the Presence of Non-essential Personnel: Only individuals who have a material role in the hearing, such as witnesses or those directly affected by the case, should be present. This ensures that the employee under investigation is not subject to undue influence or intimidation.
Provide Clear Guidelines: The employer should outline the steps of the disciplinary process, including who will be present during the hearing and their respective roles.
Maintain Confidentiality: Sensitive matters, particularly those related to money or finances, should be handled with a high degree of confidentiality to protect both the employee’s reputation and the company’s interests.
Offer Representation: Employees should be given the option to have a representative, such as a union official or legal counsel, present during the hearing to safeguard their rights.

Conclusion

In conclusion, due process in administrative hearings is a cornerstone of labor protection in the Philippines. The law mandates that employees be given a fair chance to defend themselves against accusations of misconduct or policy violations. The presence of another employee involved in the same issue during your hearing raises valid concerns about impartiality, fairness, and confidentiality, all of which are critical elements of due process.

If you believe that your rights have been compromised, you are encouraged to take action, starting with clarifying the situation with your employer and, if necessary, pursuing further legal remedies through the appropriate labor channels.