Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 90 views

    38 - Suico v. NLRC, January 30, 2007

    Uploaded by

    Christine Valido
    This case involved employees of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) who participated in a strike organized by their union against PLDT. PLDT sent the employees notices of violations during the strike and terminated them after they failed to provide explanations. The employees requested a formal hearing and documents as allowed under PLDT's Systems Practice No. 94-016. PLDT refused and terminated them. The Supreme Court ruled that PLDT violated the employees' right to due process by not complying with its own Systems Practice and terminating the employees without providing the requested formal hearing and documents. Company policies regarding termination procedures are binding and part of employees' due process rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    38 - Suico v. NLRC, January 30, 2007

    Uploaded by

    Christine Valido
    90 views2 pages
    This case involved employees of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) who participated in a strike organized by their union against PLDT. PLDT sent the employees notices of violations during the strike and terminated them after they failed to provide explanations. The employees requested a formal hearing and documents as allowed under PLDT's Systems Practice No. 94-016. PLDT refused and terminated them. The Supreme Court ruled that PLDT violated the employees' right to due process by not complying with its own Systems Practice and terminating the employees without providing the requested formal hearing and documents. Company policies regarding termination procedures are binding and part of employees' due process rights.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved employees of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) who participated in a strike organized by their union against PLDT. PLDT sent the employees notices of violations during the strike and terminated them after they failed to provide explanations. The employees requested a formal hearing and documents as allowed under PLDT's Systems Practice No. 94-016. PLDT refused and terminated them. The Supreme Court ruled that PLDT violated the employees' right to due process by not complying with its own Systems Practice and terminating the employees without providing the requested formal hearing and documents. Company policies regarding termination procedures are binding and part of employees' due process rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    90 views2 pages

    38 - Suico v. NLRC, January 30, 2007

    Uploaded by

    Christine Valido
    This case involved employees of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) who participated in a strike organized by their union against PLDT. PLDT sent the employees notices of violations during the strike and terminated them after they failed to provide explanations. The employees requested a formal hearing and documents as allowed under PLDT's Systems Practice No. 94-016. PLDT refused and terminated them. The Supreme Court ruled that PLDT violated the employees' right to due process by not complying with its own Systems Practice and terminating the employees without providing the requested formal hearing and documents. Company policies regarding termination procedures are binding and part of employees' due process rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SUICO V.

    NLRC
    G.R. No. 146762, January 30, 2007, Austria-Martinez

    Suico, Ceniza, Dacut (complainants were regular employees of Philippine Long Distance Telephone
    Company (PLDT) Cebu Jones Exchange and members of Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon ng Pilipinas
    (MKP). MKP launched a strike against PLDT. Complainants participated in the strike by picketing the
    PLDT. PLDT sent 2 notices to Suico et.al, for the acts of violation that happen during the strike. But
    the complainant failed to provide the required written explanation the acts charged to them.

    SUICO, et al. PLDT

    • They replied informing, that they opt to • Insisted that Suico, et al. submit their
    exercise their rights to due process written answers first before their
    (under Systems Practice No. 94-016) by request for formal hearing can be
    requesting for a formal hearing and to • entertained Systems Practice No. 94-
    be furnished with a copy of the formal 016 applies only to administrative cases
    and not to strikerelated cases
    written complain, statement
    • Due to the failure of Suico, et al. to file
    of witness/es and
    their answer, PLDT declared that they
    preliminary investigations have waived their right to be heard
    and/or report/s conducted on PLDT findings based on the available
    the aforesaid incident, if any •
    evidence found the complainants guilty
    and were subsequently terminated.

    LA: Dismissal of complainants is illegal ordered their reinstatement.

    NLRC: Reversed and set aside LA

    CA: Affirmed the NLRC’s decision

    ISSUE:
    Whether PLDT violated the requirements of due process under the Labor Code when it
    dismissed said employees without heeding their request for the conduct of a formal hearing as
    provided for under PLDT Systems Practice No. 94-016 and prior to submission of their respective
    answers to the charges against them.

    RULING

    YES. The procedure adopted by PLDT in dismissing Suico, et al. fell short of the requirements of due
    process. PLDT complied with the two-notice requirement of due process. The first notices sent to Suico,
    et al. set out in detail the nature and circumstances of the violations imputed to them, required them to
    explain their side and expressly warned them of the possibility of their dismissal should their
    explanation be found wanting. The last notices informed Suico, et al. of the decision to terminate their
    employment and cited the evidence upon which the decision was based. These two notices would have
    sufficed had it not been for the existence of Systems Practice No. 94-016. Under Systems Practice No.
    94-016, PLDT granted its employee the alternative of either filing a written answer to the charges or
    requesting for opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance of his counsel or union
    representative, if he so desires.
    Suico, et al. exercised their option under Systems Practice No. 94-016 by requesting that a formal
    hearing be conducted and that they be given copies of sworn statements and other pertinent
    documents to enable them to prepare for the hearing. This option is part of their right to due process.
    PLDT is bound to comply with the Systems Practice. Company policies or practices are binding on the
    parties. Some can ripen into an obligation on the part of the employer, such as those which confer
    benefits on employees or regulate the procedures and requirements for their termination

    You might also like