Due process

Dear Atty. Vlad,

I am a coffee shop owner and I own several branches in Metro Manila. When I visited one of our coffee shops in Malabon City, the branch manager, Mr. Padilla, was absent.

Further, when I met with the crew leaders and asked them about the performance of Mr. Padilla, the response was very negative. To support what the crew leaders told me, I asked them to execute affidavits and/or to submit supporting documents.

After gathering all the affidavits and supporting documents, I issued a Notice to Explain to Mr. Padilla.

Mr. Padilla was furious because of this and he told me that I was harassing him when I issued him the Notice to Explain. He also claimed that his working environment became hostile.

Is Mr. Padilla correct? I hope that you can help me.

Mr. John Marcos

Dear John Marcos,

From what you told me, you did not immediately issue the Notice to Explain. You went to the extent of verifying the claims against Mr. Padilla. You even asked the crew leaders of your branch manager (Mr. Padilla) to execute Affidavits and to provide you with supporting documents.

Under the foregoing facts, Mr. Padilla cannot claim that your act of conducting an investigation and issuing to him a Notice to Explain, are actions of harassment. You act/s fall well within your management prerogatives as the employer. In the case of Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club vs NLRC and Amalia P. Kawada, G.R. No. 154503, 29 February 2008, the Supreme Court stated:

"The Court finds that private respondent's allegation of harassment is a specious statement which contains nothing but empty imputation of a fact that could hardly be given any evidentiary weight by this Court. Private respondent's bare allegations of constructive dismissal, when uncorroborated by the evidence on record, cannot be given credence.

The sending of several memoranda addressed to a managerial or supervisory employee concerning various violations of company rules and regulations, committed on different occasions, are not unusual. The alleged February to June 1998 series of memoranda given by petitioners to private respondent asking the latter to explain the alleged irregular acts should not be construed as a form of harassment but merely an exercise of management's prerogative to discipline its employees."

From the above-cited case, the authority to determine the existence of any cause before imposing any disciplinary action belongs to the employer. In fact, Mr. Padilla should even be thankful because he was not immediately given disciplinary action. He was afforded his right to due process and he has the opportunity to prove his innocence by providing an explanation to the charges against him.

The issuance of a Notice to Explain is not an end in itself, but merely an opportunity given to employees to clear their names in case the charges are baseless.

I hope that I was able to help you based on the facts that you shared.

Atty. Vlad del Rosario