Termination of Employment employment.

This decision must come only after the employee is given a

73 Erector Advertising Sign Group, inc. vs. Cloma reasonable period from receipt of the first notice within which to answer the
July 2, 2010 | Peralta, J. | charge, thereby giving him ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself
with the assistance of his representative should he so desire. The requirement of
Facts:
notice, it has been stressed, is not a mere technically but a requirement of due
 Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of constructing
billboards and advertising sign. In the middle of 1996, petitioner engaged the process to which every employee is entitled.
services of respondent Expedito Cloma as a company driver and the latter had  Petitioner insists that Cloma has been sufficiently informed of the acts
served as such untill his dismissal from service in May 2000. constituting the grounds for termination and ample opportunity was thereafter
 Cloma filed a complaint with the NLRC and alleged that he was illegally given to him referring to the May 15 and 17 Suspension Orders. These orders,
suspended and then dismissed from his employment without due process of however hardly constitute the first notice required by law prior to termination.
law. He likewise claimed his unpaid monetary benefits such as overtime pay, These two orders readily reveals that the alleged offenses mentioned were not
premium pay for worked rest days, service incentive leave pay and 13 th month
used as grounds for termination but merely for suspension. Indeed petitioner has
pay, as well as moral, exemplary and actual damages and attorneys fees.
 It was conceded by petitioner that Cloma was suspended several times from not complied with the basic requirement of serving pre-dismissal notice on
work due to frequent tardiness and absentteeism but the instant case appears to Cloma. The only notice was given was only May 20, 2000 notice of termination
be likewise the result of documented instances of absenteeism without prior informing him that his employment in the company has been servedd for the
notice to and approval of from his superior, and misbehavior. The former causes mentioned.
happened between May 12 and 15, 2000 when Cloma supposedly failed to report
for work without prior notice and prior leave approval which thus effectively
Dispositive
prevented the other workers from being transported to the job site as there was
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. DENIED.
no other driver available. Whereas the latter incident happened on May 11,2000
The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated November 22, 2013 and
when allegedly, Cloma without authority barged into the premises of the
Outright Division and without being provoked, threatened the employees with May 20, 2014, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 125911, are AFFIRMED
bodily harm if they did not stop from doing their work.
 On May 15 and 17, 2000 private respondent received suspension orders for
unauthorized absences for two days and for threatening to harm the employees
in the Outright Division.
 On May 20, 2000 he was stopped by a security guard and Cloma received notice
of termination, informing him that his employment in the company has been
severed for the causes mentioned.
 LA dismissed
 NLRC reversed

Issue:
Whether Cloma dismissed with due process of law?

Held:
No
 The employer is bound to furnish the employee concerned with two (2) written
notices before termination of employment can be legally effected. One is the
notice apprising the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his
dismissal is sought and this may loosely be considered as the proper charge. The
other notice informing the employee of the management's decision to sever his