Why NEA CANNOT just fire anybody in BENECO by mere publication
Pre-Semester Non-Lecture Analysis 38
Again this is for my law students preparing for the Bar—and everyone else out there who are in denial of the fact that they are good enough to be lawyers just the way they are:
This is Labor Law.
If you are terminating Juan for JUST CAUSE, you must observe the Twin-Notice Rule. The First Notice must inform Juan what he did wrong, asking him to explain and submit any evidence in his favor, announcing the date when management will hear his side. The Second Notice must tell him the decision reached by management, whether to terminate him, retain him or impose any other penalty, and the basis of that decision in law and facts.
If you are terminating Juan for AUTHORIZED CAUSE (retrenchment, redundancy, installation of labor-saving device, etc.) you must STILL observe the Twin-Notice Rule, but in a slightly different way. The First Notice must inform Juan the reason why he is being terminated. But don’t ask him to explain anything. It’s not his fault. One notice to him is enough. The Second Notice must be given to the Bureau of Labor Relations of DOLE and it is management that must explain why it terminated Juan, state the authorized cause, and report what terminal benefits it gave Juan to comply with Labor standards.
QUESTION: Suppose a managerial applicant, who has not yet properly assumed her position, locks Juan out of the office, publishes a First Memo not addressed to Juan but “to whom it may concern” and telling Juan to show cause why he should not be fired; before Juan can answer, she publishes a Second Memo advertising that applications are now being accepted to fill Juan’s position; before a single application is even accepted, she publishes a Third Memo, again “to whom it may concern” insinuating that Juan, out of sheer conscience, should report back to work, what do you tell that manager-in-waiting?
ANSWER: “Ma’am do not apply PD 269, the law creating NEA. You should apply PD 442, the law instituting a Labor Code of the Philippines.”
BONUS QUESTION: Is there still a way to improve your answer above? YES. “Actually, Ma’am, even PD 269 contains no provision justifying any of the actions you did.”
The author is a writer and lawyer based in Baguio City, Philippines. Former editor of the Gold Ore and Baguio City Digest, professor of journalism, political science and law at Baguio Colleges Foundation (BCF). He is a photographer and video documentarist. He has a YouTube channel called “Parables and Reason”