G.R. No. 165282 - Electro System Industries Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Private respondent Noel Baltazar A. Sumaculub was employed as a driver by petitioner Electro System Industries Corporation, earning a monthly salary of P5,700.00.
During his employment, Sumaculub was involved in three vehicular accidents attributable to alleged negligence while driving company vehicles.

On April 18, 1997, while operating a company car, Sumaculub collided with a motorcross bike driven by Gilbert PeAa.
On December 13, 1997, he was involved in an incident where he bumped the rear portion of a Toyota Corolla driven by Amelia Flores.
On August 7, 1998, he crashed into a post situated on the Kalayaan Flyover in Makati, resulting in damages for which the petitioner subsequently incurred expenses.

On August 10, 1998, petitioner terminated Sumaculub’s employment for repeated violations of company rules against reckless driving.
The notice issued to Sumaculub was deficient as it only alluded to a violation of Rule 34 of the Company Rules & Regulation without specifying the penalty of dismissal or clearly enumerating the exact act or omission constituting the ground for dismissal.

Sumaculub filed an illegal termination case before the Labor Arbiter which resulted in a declaration that the dismissal was invalid.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that although there was a just cause for dismissal, petitioner failed to comply with the statutory due process requirements, particularly the twin notice rule.
As a result, the Court of Appeals ordered petitioner to pay backwages from the date of termination until finality of the decision and denied the motion for reconsideration.

Under Book VI, Rule I, Section 2(d) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, the employer is required to serve two distinct notices:

The first notice must inform the employee about the specific acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought and state the consequences if the charges are proven.
The second notice informs the employee of the actual dismissal following the hearing or investigation.

The jurisprudence emphasizes that the first notice must unequivocally state that dismissal is sought and clearly articulate the penalty if the allegations are verified.
In the present case, the first notice merely referenced the violation of a company rule and did not specify dismissal as the penalty, thereby falling short of due process requirements.
There was no sufficient proof that the statutory two notices were properly served, as evidenced by the absence of the respondent’s signature on the first notice and only a notation of his refusal to sign the second.

Whether petitioner observed the statutory twin notice rule in terminating the employment of Sumaculub.
Whether the failure to furnish a fully detailed first notice and the deficiency in serving the required second notice deprived Sumaculub of his right to due process.

Whether the lack of compliance with due process mandates a nullification of the dismissal or renders it ineffectual.
Whether the petitioner should be held liable for indemnifying the employee despite the existence of just cause for termination.