Employment Termination Disputes in the Philippines: Legal Process and Rules

Ending an employee’s contract in the Philippines is not a simple business decision — it is a regulated process under a labor framework designed to protect employee rights. For foreign-owned companies, any failure to comply can result in costly disputes, legal penalties, and reputational harm.

Legal grounds for ending employment

Philippine labor law, primarily under the Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended), recognizes two main categories of termination grounds: just causes and authorized causes.

Just causes involve employee fault, such as serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duty, fraud or breach of trust, and the commission of a crime against the employer or co-workers. These require the “twin notice” procedure: first, a written notice specifying the charges and allowing the employee to explain, and second, a written notice confirming the termination after considering their response.

Authorized causes are not the employee’s fault but are business or health-related, such as redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses, closure of business, installation of labor-saving devices, or an employee’s incurable illness. For these, the employer must give at least 30 days’ written notice to both the employee and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).

Why termination disputes arise

Disputes are often triggered by procedural non-compliance, such as missing a required notice or misclassifying the ground for dismissal. They also arise from disagreements over separation-pay computations where length of service and allowances are in dispute. Cultural differences and unfamiliarity with local practice can turn these issues into formal complaints.

Settlement before litigation

In the Philippines, settlement is not only advisable — it can be a required procedural step in certain labor disputes. The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) offers preventive mediation services under the single-entry approach (SEnA) program, which mandates that parties in a labor dispute first attempt conciliation before a single-entry assistance desk officer (SEADO). SEnA functions as the default first step for most labor disputes before cases can be filed with the NLRC, the Bureau of Labor Relations, DOLE Regional Offices, or through voluntary arbitration; limited exceptions exist under the rules.

Under SEnA, a conciliation-mediation conference is typically set within five calendar days from the request and must be resolved within 30 days. This process allows the employer and employee to discuss grievances openly, with DOLE facilitating dialogue. Settlements reached here avoid the need to file a formal case with the NLRC.

A mutual separation agreement (MSA) is another tool for resolving disputes early. In an MSA, both sides agree on terms, such as a separation package, final pay, and release of claims, allowing the employee to leave voluntarily and preventing future legal action. To be enforceable, the agreement must:

• Be in writing and signed voluntarily by both parties
• State the amount and breakdown of any settlement payment
• Include a waiver of future claims related to the employment
• Be witnessed, and ideally notarized, to strengthen enforceability

Settlement packages may include separation pay above the statutory minimum, accrued benefits, and other negotiated terms. Employers should also consider the tax treatment of lump-sum payments, as some may be tax-exempt if they meet the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s conditions for separation benefits.

Employers should secure the required BIR documentation (such as exemption processing per revenue regulations 2-98 and relevant revenue memorandum orders) to support any tax-exempt treatment of separation benefits.

For foreign investors, early settlement has strategic advantages. It contains legal costs, keeps sensitive disputes out of the public record, and resolves issues faster — often within weeks — compared to NLRC proceedings that may run for months. It also preserves workplace morale by avoiding drawn-out conflict.

Filing a case with the labor arbiter

When settlement fails, the case moves to the labor arbiter at the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The process begins with the employee filing a verified complaint. Within five days, the Labor Arbiter issues a summons to the employer and schedules a mandatory conciliation and mediation conference.

At the conference, both parties are encouraged to settle. If no settlement is reached, the Arbiter directs each side to submit position papers — usually within 10 calendar days — detailing the facts, legal arguments, and supporting evidence. After the position papers are filed, the Arbiter may allow a reply to briefs to address new issues raised.

Once the documentary stage is complete, the case is deemed submitted for decision, which the labor arbiter is expected to issue within 30 days from submission.

Evidence can include employment contracts, written notices, warning letters, performance evaluations, payroll records, and any internal policies relied upon in the termination decision. While these timelines exist in the rules, in practice, heavy caseloads mean proceedings may extend over several months.

Appeals and higher review

If either party is dissatisfied, they can appeal to the NLRC within 10 calendar days of receiving the decision. If the award includes monetary relief, the employer must post a cash or surety bond equal to the monetary award to perfect the appeal. NLRC rulings can be brought to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, and in some cases, escalated to the Supreme Court. Each level adds significant time, appeals can extend the dispute to a year or more, with mounting legal costs and business disruption.

Practical example: How a dispute can escalate

A foreign-owned BPO in Manila dismisses an employee for repeated tardiness. The underlying facts are proven, but HR failed to issue the first written notice before termination. The employee files a complaint with the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter upholds the validity of the dismissal (just cause exists) but finds a procedural defect and orders the company to pay ₱30,000 nominal damages for the due-process lapse — not back wages or separation pay. Had the employer failed to prove a valid ground, the outcome would likely have been illegal dismissal, with reinstatement and full back wages or separation pay in place of reinstatement.

Financial exposure and penalties

For authorized causes, separation pay is either one month’s salary per year of service (redundancy or labor-saving devices) or one-half month’s salary per year (retrenchment, closure not due to serious losses, or disease), whichever is higher. For just causes, separation pay is generally not required unless provided by company policy or a collective bargaining agreement. If the ground exists but the employer fails to observe procedural due process, courts may award nominal damages — ₱30,000 for just-cause cases (Agabon v. NLRC) or ₱50,000 for authorized-cause cases (Jaka Food).

Where the dismissal is illegal (no valid ground), typical remedies include reinstatement and full back wages, or separation pay instead of reinstatement at roughly one month per year of service as equitably determined by the courts.

Preventing termination disputes

The best strategy for foreign investors is prevention. This includes drafting compliant employment contracts with clear duties and grounds for termination, maintaining meticulous records of performance and disciplinary actions, training managers on local labor procedures, and seeking professional advice before issuing a termination notice. Compliance not only avoids legal costs but also protects the company’s employer brand in a competitive labor market.

Next steps for employers

Termination disputes in the Philippines are preventable with the right preparation and understanding of the legal process. By following correct procedures, documenting every step, and engaging expert advice, foreign employers can safeguard their operations from costly and time-consuming disputes.

• Previous Article How Foreign Investors Can Use Malaysia’s Double Taxation Agreements
• Next Article Legal Implications of Using Local Nominees in Foreign Ownership Structures in Indonesia