he procedural due process in termination cases in determining the validity of th

e termination. However, under the latest doctrinal

en banc
ruling in the 2013 case of
Abbott Laboratories, Philippines v. Pearlie Ann F. Alcaraz,
it is now required that in
addition
to compliance with the statutory due process, the employer should still comply
with the due process procedure prescribed in its own
company rules
. The employer s failure to observe its own company-prescribed due process will ma
ke it liable to pay an indemnity in the form of nominal damages, the amount of w
hich is equivalent to the P30,000.00 awarded under the
Agabon
doctrine.

When can an employee invoke constitutional due process and right to equal protec
tion of the laws?
As distinguished from company-level investigation conducted by the employer, a d
ismissed employee who files an illegal dismissal case may raise the issue of dep
rivation of his right to
constitutional
due process and right to
equal protection of the laws
against the Labor Arbiter who hears and decides his case or the Commission (NLR
C), Court of Appeals on Rule 65 certiorari petition. The reason is that, at this
stage, the government is now involved through said labor tribunals.

When can the right to counsel may be invoked by an employee?

The right to counsel cannot be invoked in an administrative proceeding such as t
he company-level investigation conducted for the purpose of determining whether
the respondent employee should be dismissed or not.
Right to counsel may be asserted only in custodial interrogation as this term is
understood within the context of criminal procedure.

What is the effect of failure of employer to inform employee of his right to cou
nsel?
The prevailing rule is the right to counsel is neither indispensable nor mandato
ry, as held in the 2011 case of
Lopez v. Alturas Group of Companies,
thus: Parenthetically, the Court finds that it was error for the NLRC to opine t
hat petitioner should have been afforded counsel or advised of the right to coun
sel.
The right to counsel and the assistance of one in investigations involving termi
nation cases is neither indispensable nor mandatory, except when the employee hi
mself requests for one or that he manifests that he wants a formal hearing on