G.R. No. 234725 , September 16, 2020
BICOL ISAROG TRANSPORT SYSTEM, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ROY R. RELUCIO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Roy R. Relucio was employed as a bus driver by petitioner Bicol Isarog Transport System, Inc. On March 28, 2013, the company received a report that Relucio disobeyed an order from his superior not to proceed with a trip from Masbate to Manila due to insufficient passengers. Upon arriving in Manila, he left the terminal without reporting to the operations manager as directed. The company subsequently issued a memorandum requiring him to submit a written explanation for the alleged insubordination. The Human Resource manager attempted to personally serve this notice at the address Relucio provided in his records but was informed he did not reside there.
When Relucio failed to report for work or submit an explanation, the company issued a second memorandum and, ultimately, a notice of termination dated April 5, 2013, citing abandonment of work. The notice was only served on Relucio on April 18, 2013, during a conference at the Department of Labor and Employment. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed Relucio’s complaint for illegal dismissal, finding just cause and substantial compliance with due process.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the labor tribunals and declared that Relucio was illegally dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling that Relucio was illegally dismissed. The petitioner failed to comply with the twin-notice requirement of procedural due process. For termination based on a just cause, the employer must furnish the employee with two written notices: a notice specifying the grounds for termination and allowing the employee to explain, and a subsequent notice of termination indicating that upon consideration of the employee’s explanation, grounds for dismissal exist.
Here, the first notice (memorandum) was not validly served. Personal service at the employee’s last known address is required. The company’s attempt at service failed because it relied on an incorrect address from Relucio’s records. The law imposes upon the employer the burden to ensure proper service. The company should have taken further reasonable steps to locate him, especially since it was aware he was actively pursuing a complaint. The eventual service of the termination notice weeks later during a DOLE conference did not cure this fatal defect. Consequently, the dismissal was procedurally infirm. While the act of insubordination may have constituted a just cause, the failure to observe due process rendered the termination illegal, entitling Relucio to reinstatement or separation pay and full backwages.