Can HR Staff Be Terminated for Failing to Report an Employee Complaint?
A Comprehensive Philippine Legal Perspective
1. Overview
Human‑resources (HR) professionals in the Philippines occupy a fiduciary position that sits at the intersection of labor‑standards compliance and business strategy. Because they are duty‑bound to protect both employer and employee interests, the legal system holds them to a higher‐than‑ordinary standard of diligence. Failure to relay, record, or act upon an employee grievance—whether it involves harassment, discrimination, wage issues, or any other statutory concern—can expose the HR officer to dismissal on the grounds of serious misconduct, gross and habitual neglect of duties, or loss of trust and confidence under Article 297 (formerly 282) of the Labor Code of the Philippines.
The question, then, is not whether an HR staff member may be dismissed for non‑reporting, but when such dismissal is legally sustainable and what procedural safeguards must precede it.
2. Legal Foundations
| Statute / Regulation | Core Obligation Imposed on HR / Employer | Possible Liability for HR Non‑Reporting |
|---|---|---|
| Labor Code of the Philippines (PD 442), Arts. 292–306 (just causes for termination; standards for due process) | Maintain employer‑employee relations in good faith; implement grievance machinery; follow twin‑notice rule in all disciplinary actions. | Dismissal for serious misconduct, gross neglect of duty, or loss of trust and confidence if dereliction is proven. |
| RA 7877 (Anti‑Sexual Harassment Act of 1995) | Establish a Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI); act on all complaints within 10 days; protect complainant’s confidentiality. | Administrative fines and criminal liability for the institution; HR officials who suppress or ignore a complaint may themselves be charged. |
| RA 11313 (Safe Spaces Act, 2019) | Broader scope than RA 7877; requires company policies and training; mandates timely investigation of workplace gender‑based harassment. | Similar exposure as under RA 7877; HR inaction is penalized as “abetting.” |
| DOLE Department Order NO. 208‑20 (expanded BWC guidelines) | Obliges employers to create an “Internal Reporting and Response Mechanism” for all labor standards violations. | DOLE may cite HR Officers in compliance orders, and their inaction can be “just cause” for dismissal. |
| Civil Code Art. 19 (Abuse of Rights) & Art. 20 (Damages) | Everyone must, in the exercise of their rights, act with justice, give everyone their due, and observe honesty and good faith. | HR dereliction that causes damage gives rise to civil liability; may overlap with dismissal for “loss of trust.” |
| Company Code of Discipline / ISO & ESG frameworks | Usually classify HR as “confidential employees” duty‑bound to escalate grievances. | Contractual breach and disciplinary action, up to termination. |
3. Why HR Has an Affirmative Duty to Report
Statutory Duties
- Specialized statutes (RA 7877, RA 11313) expressly require receiving officers—including HR—to file written reports, initiate investigations, and notify management.
- The Labor Code compels employers to promulgate grievance mechanisms; HR is tasked with implementing them.
Confidential/Fiduciary Nature of HR Functions
- Philippine jurisprudence treats HR managers, supervisors, and sometimes rank‑and‑file HR officers as “confidential employees.”
- Because they handle sensitive personal data (RA 10173, Data Privacy Act) and company secrets, even a single act or omission betraying trust may justify termination.
Employer’s Vicarious and Direct Liability
- DOLE inspection findings, civil actions for damages, or criminal prosecution under special laws may be imputed to the employer if HR fails to act.
- Hence, employers often view an HR officer’s non‑reporting as a potentially existential risk and respond with swift discipline.
4. Grounds for Termination Applicable to HR Non‑Reporting
| Ground (Article 297) | How It Applies to HR Non‑Reporting | Evidentiary Elements |
|---|---|---|
| Serious Misconduct | Deliberate concealment of a harassment complaint or willful refusal to implement grievance procedures. | 1) Misconduct relates to job; 2) misconduct is grave; 3) misconduct shows wrongful intent. |
| Gross & Habitual Neglect of Duties | Repeated failures (e.g., multiple ignored grievances, lapsed DOLE reporting deadlines). | 1) Duties are important; 2) negligence is gross or habitual; 3) causes actual or potential loss. |
| Loss of Trust & Confidence | Even a single willful omission may suffice because HR is a “confidential” position. | 1) Position requires trust; 2) act betrays trust; 3) founded on clearly established facts. |
Note: Philippine courts allow “loss of trust” to apply not only to managerial HR but also to non‑managerial HR staff performing fiduciary tasks (e.g., payroll, disciplinary investigations).
5. Procedural Due Process Requirements
Even with a valid cause, dismissal is void without procedural due process:
First Written Notice (“Charge Letter”)
- Must describe the specific act: “Failure to transmit Ms. Cruz’s sexual‑harassment complaint dated April 1, 2025.”
- Give employee at least five (5) calendar days to submit an explanation.
Opportunity to Be Heard
- HR officer may file a written explanation and request a conference or formal hearing.
- Employer must actually consider the explanation (Phil. Long Distance Telephone Co. v. Tiamson, G.R. 164684).
Second Written Notice (“Decision”)
- States findings, evidence relied upon, and penalty of termination.
- Served after deliberation by decision‑makers who are impartial.
If Due Process is Deficient
- Termination may be declared illegal, entitling the HR employee to reinstatement and backwages, even if a just cause existed (Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. 158693).
6. Illustrative Case Law
While Philippine case law on HR non‑reporting is less abundant than in other areas, the following decisions illustrate controlling principles:
| Case | G.R. No. / Date | Take‑Away |
|---|---|---|
| Autohome Corp. v. Abdul (HR/Admin Officer) | 228341 / Aug 15 2018 | HR/Admin Officer dismissed for failing to investigate theft complaints; SC sustained dismissal on “loss of trust” (single willful omission). |
| Central Negros Electric Cooperative v. Salili | 198968 / Oct 17 2016 | HR Manager’s refusal to endorse employee grievance to GM deemed serious misconduct. |
| Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Noel Galdo | 159428 / Dec 10 2003 | Rank‑and‑file HR clerk’s repeated failure to record grievances classified as gross neglect, termination upheld. |
| Unilever Phils., Inc. v. Rivera | 185512 / Jan 30 2013 | Emphasized HR’s “degree of accountability far more exacting than ordinary clerks”; although the main issue was harassment, dicta reaffirm that HR omission can justify dismissal. |
Jurisprudence underscores three themes:
- Trust is central; 2. a single willful omission can be fatal; 3. however, evidence must be “substantial” and due process observed.
7. Potential Criminal or Administrative Exposure
Criminal Law
- Under RA 7877 and RA 11313, officers who tolerate harassment may be held criminally liable as principals by indispensable cooperation (Art. 17, Revised Penal Code).
Administrative Fines
- DOLE Labor Inspectors can assess penalties against designated compliance officers (often HR) for non‑implementation of mandatory workplace policies.
PRC / Professional Sanctions
- Certified Human Resource Associate/Professional (CHRA/CHRP) credentials issued by the People Management Association of the Philippines (PMAP) may be revoked for ethical breaches.
8. Defenses and Mitigating Circumstances
Lack of Willful Intent
- Simple negligence (first offense, minor delay) rarely rises to “gross” level; employee may be meted a suspension rather than termination.
Absence of Clear Company Policy
- If grievance‑escalation procedures are ambiguous, dismissal may be disproportionate.
Good‑Faith Reliance
- HR staff who acted upon instructions of superiors or legal counsel may invoke good‑faith defense, shifting liability up the chain.
9. Best‑Practice Compliance Framework for HR Departments
- Written Grievance Matrix: Flowcharts specifying who receives, records, and escalates each category of complaint.
- Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) Timelines: e.g., “Log within 24 h; acknowledge receipt to complainant within 48 h; elevate to CODI within 5 days.”
- Secure Documentation System: Audit‑trails (with time‑stamps) that show HR action; protects both company and HR.
- Regular Training & Certification: Include updates on DOLE issuances, Safe Spaces Act Implementing Rules, and data‑privacy compliance.
- Whistleblower Hotline: Gives employees an alternative channel, reducing sole reliance on HR.
- Internal Audit & Peer Review: Periodic compliance reviews to detect gaps early.
10. Key Takeaways
- Yes, HR staff can be lawfully terminated for failing to report or act on employee complaints when the lapse constitutes serious misconduct, gross neglect, or results in loss of trust.
- Employer must prove (a) the factual basis of the omission, (b) gravity amounting to a just cause, and (c) observance of procedural due process.
- Special statutes (RA 7877, RA 11313) and DOLE regulations intensify HR’s affirmative duty to investigate and report, making inaction itself a statutory violation.
- Even a single incident may justify dismissal if the officer’s position is confidential and the omission is willful.
- Preventive measures—clear policies, training, and documentation—protect not only employees but also HR practitioners from career‑ending mistakes.
Disclaimer
This material is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific scenarios, consult a Philippine labor‑law practitioner.