G.R. No. 141717. April 14, 2004.
PHILIPS SEMICONDUCTORS (PHILS.), INC., petitioner, vs. ELOISA FADRIQUELA, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Philips Semiconductors employed respondent Eloisa Fadriquela as a production operator under a series of fixed-term contracts from May 1992. Each renewal was contingent on her maintaining a performance rating of at least 3.0. Her last contract from April to June 1993 was not renewed after her rating fell to 2.8 due to habitual absenteeism. The company argued her employment merely expired and she was not dismissed, thus notice and hearing were unnecessary.
Respondent filed an illegal dismissal complaint, asserting she had become a regular employee after more than six months of service and was terminated without just cause and due process. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC dismissed her complaint, ruling she remained a contractual employee bound by her contract’s stipulations, including the performance condition for renewal, and that dialogues with her supervisor constituted substantial compliance with procedural requirements.

ISSUE

Whether respondent was illegally dismissed, having been terminated without just cause and procedural due process.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ finding of illegal dismissal. The legal logic proceeds from the nature of employment and the requirements of due process. First, the Court found that respondent had attained regular employment status. Her successive contract renewals over a year, performing duties necessary and desirable to petitioner’s business, indicated she was a regular employee under Article 280 of the Labor Code. The stipulation requiring seventeen months of service for regularization in the CBA was void for circumventing this statutory security of tenure.
Second, her termination was without just cause. Habitual absenteeism requires a finding of perversity or willful intent. Her absences, some allegedly authorized, did not constitute willful neglect warranting dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The employer failed to substantiate a clear and valid cause for termination.
Third, procedural due process was violated. The mere dialogues with her line supervisor did not satisfy the twin-notice requirement. She was not formally notified of the charge nor given a genuine opportunity to be heard in a formal investigation before the decision to terminate was made. Consequently, she was entitled to reinstatement, full backwages, and attorney’s fees under Article 279.