Labor Law Review

Atty. Dante Miguel V. Cadiz

May 21, 2018

11. X was a sales representative of Y Company, a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacturing of
various packaging products. She was tasked to sell 5,000 glass bottles as monthly quota. In view of X’s
failure to achieve her monthly quota for the last (3) months, Z, HR manager of Y Company, sent her a
notice to explain why she should not be terminated on account of her failure to achieve her committed
sales quota. A hearing was conducted; however, X failed to appear despite notice. Subsequently, Y
Company sent X a notice of termination, dismissing her on the ground of insubordination for her failure
to attend the scheduled hearing and justify her absence. X filed the complaint for illegal dismissal with
prayer for reinstatement, backwages, damages, and attorney’s fees.

If you were the Labor Arbiter, how would you decide the case? Discuss fully. (5%)

Answer:

I will uphold the dismissal. There is a just cause for terminating X. As held in Puncia v. Toyota Shaw/Pasig
(G.R. No. 214399, June 28, 2016), the employee's repeated failure to perform his duties - i.e., reaching
his monthly sales quota - falls under the concept of gross inefficiency, which is analogous to gross
neglect of duty, a just cause for dismissal under Art. 297 of the Labor Code. In this case, X's failure to
achieve her monthly quota for the last 3 months can be considered as gross inefficiency. Therefore, Y
Company complied with the substantive due process requirement as there was indeed just cause for X's
termination.

On the aspect of procedural due process, X was deprived of the same when she was dismissed for
insubordination as stated in the Notice of Termination - a completely different ground from what was
stated in the Notice to Explain (failure to meet her committed sales quota). As such, Puncia's right to
procedural due process was violated. This entitles her to nominal damages of Php 30,000.