DOLE article/order stating 5-day requirement for Notice to Explain/Show-cause letter?

Good day to all! In the office we used to serve memos to employees for their infractions giving them only 2 days to explain from receipt of their memo.  Sometime 2 years ago I was told that it has changed to 5 days.  In what DOLE article/order/memo can I find this rule? If you know of a weblink, that too can be of use.

Thanks for your help.

tangadsangig wrote:Good day to all! In the office we used to serve memos to employees for their infractions giving them only 2 days to explain from receipt of their memo.  Sometime 2 years ago I was told that it has changed to 5 days.  In what DOLE article/order/memo can I find this rule? If you know of a weblink, that too can be of use.

Thanks for your help.

Supreme Court Jurisprudence. King of Kings vs Mamac.



The first written notice to be served on the employees should contain the specific causes or grounds for termination against them, and a directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their written explanation within a reasonable period. “Reasonable opportunity” under the Omnibus Rules means every kind of assistance that management must accord to the employees to enable them to prepare adequately for their defense. This should be construed as a period of at least five (5) calendar days from receipt of the notice to give the employees an opportunity to study the accusation against them, consult a union official or lawyer, gather data and evidence, and decide on the defenses they will raise against the complaint. Moreover, in order to enable the employees to intelligently prepare their explanation and defenses, the notice should contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as basis for the charge against the employees. A general description of the charge will not suffice. Lastly, the notice should specifically mention which company rules, if any, are violated and/or which among the grounds under Art. 282 is being charged against the employees.

Atty does it mean that because of the King of Kings vs Mamac case, the 5-day ample period to explain became a standard instead of the 2-day that I once was used to?

If so, it means that I shouldn't limit my readings on the books alone but also in court decisions like these.

I also read this: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/july2008/166211-j-velasco.htm

tangadsangig wrote:Atty does it mean that because of the King of Kings vs Mamac case, the 5-day ample period to explain became a standard instead of the 2-day that I once was used to?

If so, it means that I shouldn't limit my readings on the books alone but also in court decisions like these.

I also read this: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/july2008/166211-j-velasco.htm

If you would read the entire court ruling on the King of Kings vs. Mamac, the 5 day rule applies to "dismissal cases". That is, if you intend to terminate an employee based on just causes, you should at least provide 5 days but if you intend to warn/suspend, then 2 days would be sufficient.

concilii wrote:If you would read the entire court ruling on the King of Kings vs. Mamac, the 5 day rule applies to "dismissal cases". That is, if you intend to terminate an employee based on just causes, you should at least provide 5 days but if you intend to warn/suspend, then  2 days would be sufficient.

For the benefit of the rest who might be interested, kindly elaborate on jurisprudence or policy mentioning that 2 days would be sufficient for non-terminable (dismissal) cases.

council wrote:

concilii wrote:If you would read the entire court ruling on the King of Kings vs. Mamac, the 5 day rule applies to "dismissal cases". That is, if you intend to terminate an employee based on just causes, you should at least provide 5 days but if you intend to warn/suspend, then  2 days would be sufficient.

For the benefit of the rest who might be interested, kindly elaborate on jurisprudence or policy mentioning that 2 days would be sufficient for non-terminable (dismissal) cases.

The Labor Code did not actually specify the number of days nor number of hours when it comes to the application of DUE PROCESS. especaially on NON-TERMINABLE CASES.. It emphasized though, the TWIN NOTICE REQUIREMENT for "termination of employees". Thus, the case of "Mamac vs. King of Kings (G.R. nO. 166208 -June 29, 2007) is actually an illegal termination case wherein Mamac was not given sufficient time to explain his side ..thus the 5 DAY NOTICE requierement became the standard.

How about for non-terminable cases.. it actually depends on the company policy BUT the basic rule is a show cause memo should be provided before an employee is penalized.. some companies would provide 24 hours other 72..etc. The Labor Code did not specify anything on that aspect except of course the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE... which simply means..it hears before it condemns..