How to Legally Fire an Employee in the Philippines

By Jean Francois "Punch" Rivera III

This legal guide by Jean Francois Rivera III, also known as Punch Rivera, discusses how to legally fire an employee in the philippines in the Philippine context.

Terminating an employee is one of the hardest decisions an employer has to make.

It is also one of the easiest ways to end up in a labor case if handled badly.

Many employers assume that once an employee becomes lazy, careless, incompetent, or difficult, management can simply decide to let him go. Philippine labor law does not work that way.

Under the Labor Code of the Philippines, employees enjoy what is called security of tenure. An employee cannot simply be dismissed because management is frustrated or disappointed. There must be a lawful ground, and proper due process must be observed.

Both matter.

The safest way to approach termination is step by step.

1. Make Sure There Is a Valid Ground for Dismissal

The first question is straightforward.

Why exactly is the employee being terminated?

The Labor Code recognizes specific just causes for dismissal, such as serious misconduct, fraud, willful disobedience, gross neglect of duty, breach of trust, and commission of a crime against the employer.

Some cases are easy.

An employee caught stealing company funds. A cashier pocketing payments. An employee falsifying records. These clearly fall under serious misconduct or fraud. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that theft and similar acts justify dismissal because they destroy the trust essential to employment relationships (DOLE Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. L-55413, July 25, 1983).

But most workplace situations are not that obvious.

Usually, the problem is performance.

The employee repeatedly misses deadlines. Makes costly mistakes over and over. Ignores instructions. Produces consistently poor work. Causes losses to the company through carelessness.

This is where employers become uncertain because “habitual laziness” is not literally listed in the Labor Code.

That does not necessarily mean dismissal is impossible.

The law also recognizes “analogous causes,” meaning acts similar in nature to the recognized just causes. Gross inefficiency, repeated serious mistakes, and habitual incompetence may fall under gross and habitual neglect of duties if serious enough.

For example, an accountant who repeatedly files erroneous tax returns despite repeated warnings, causing substantial penalties to the company, presents a very different situation from an employee who commits one isolated minor mistake.

The law looks at the totality:

• Was the conduct repeated?
• Was the employee warned?
• Did the mistakes seriously prejudice the employer?
• Was there gross negligence or willful disregard?

Those details matter.

2. Understand That One Serious Mistake Can Sometimes Be Enough

Many people assume negligence must always be repeated before dismissal becomes valid.

Not always.

The Supreme Court has recognized situations where a single act of gross negligence causing serious damage justified termination. In Rustan Commercial Corporation v. Raysag and Entrina (G.R. No. 219664, May 12, 2021), the Court reiterated that while negligence is generally expected to be habitual, a single grave act causing enormous prejudice may already justify dismissal under proper circumstances.

That makes practical sense.

An employer is not always required to wait for a second disaster before acting.

Suppose an employee’s serious carelessness causes millions in losses, destroys critical company property, or exposes the company to major liability. The law may recognize management’s right to protect itself.

As the Supreme Court itself once said, labor law protects employees, but it does not authorize the self-destruction of the employer (Fuentes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 75955, October 28, 1988).

3. Use a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)

This is where smart employers protect themselves.

Before terminating someone for poor performance, many companies implement a Performance Improvement Plan or PIP.

Strictly speaking, the Labor Code does not expressly require a PIP. But from a practical standpoint, it is extremely useful.

A proper PIP identifies:

• the performance problems,
• the standards expected,
• the timeline for improvement,
• and the consequences of continued failure.

More importantly, it gives the employee a fair opportunity to improve.

This matters because labor disputes often become evidence problems. An employer who suddenly terminates an employee for “poor performance” without prior warnings, evaluations, coaching, or documentation may struggle to prove that dismissal was justified.

A documented PIP demonstrates fairness. It shows that management tried to correct the problem before resorting to termination.

Courts pay attention to that.

4. Observe Procedural Due Process: The Two-Notice Rule

Even if the ground for dismissal is valid, the employer still needs to follow due process.

This is where many dismissals fail.

Philippine labor law generally requires what is known as the two-notice rule.

The first notice informs the employee of the specific charges against him. It should clearly describe the acts complained of, the company rules violated, and the grounds being invoked. Vague accusations are not enough.

The employee must then be given reasonable opportunity to explain. The Supreme Court explained in Genuino v. NLRC (G.R. Nos. 142732-33, December 4, 2007) that reasonable opportunity generally means at least five calendar days to study the accusations, consult counsel if necessary, and prepare a defense.

After that comes the opportunity to be heard. This may involve a hearing, conference, or written explanation. What matters is that the employee is genuinely allowed to answer the charges.

Finally, if management concludes that dismissal is justified, the employer issues the second notice informing the employee of the final decision and the reasons supporting it.

Skipping these steps creates problems even where the ground for dismissal itself is valid.

5. Avoid Forced Resignations

Some employers try to shortcut the process by pressuring employees to resign instead.

This is dangerous.

Courts closely examine resignations that appear coerced or involuntary. A resignation obtained through pressure, intimidation, or manipulation may later be treated as constructive dismissal.

In A’ Prime Security Services, Inc. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 107320, January 19, 2000), the Supreme Court disregarded a resignation letter that appeared to have been prepared at the employer’s instance rather than voluntarily executed by the employee.

Sometimes employers think asking for a resignation is the cleaner solution. Ironically, it can create even more legal exposure if handled badly.

Very often, the safer route is simply to follow due process properly.

Philippine labor law protects employees, but it does not require employers to tolerate dishonesty, gross negligence, serious incompetence, or repeated failure to properly perform work.

Employers absolutely have the right to terminate employees for valid causes.

But the key word is valid.

The strongest terminations are usually not the emotional ones made out of frustration. They are the well-documented ones:

clear grounds, fair warnings, reasonable opportunity to improve, and proper due process.

That is what the law ultimately looks for.

Not perfection.

Fairness.

---

About the author: Jean Francois "Punch" Rivera III writes legal explainers and public-interest guides for readers searching for Jean Francois Rivera III, Jean Francois Rivera, and Punch Rivera.