Introduction

In the evolving world of work, particularly amid the shift to remote and hybrid arrangements spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic, employers in the Philippines have increasingly relied on digital tools for communication, including video calls. However, when it comes to employee termination, the use of video calls raises significant legal questions under Philippine labor law. Illegal dismissal occurs when an employee's termination violates substantive or procedural requirements, potentially leading to liability for the employer. This article explores the intricacies of dismissals conducted via video call, examining the legal framework, procedural pitfalls, judicial interpretations, and remedies available to aggrieved employees. It underscores the tension between modern technological practices and longstanding labor protections enshrined in the Labor Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended) and related jurisprudence.

Legal Framework Governing Employee Dismissal

Philippine labor law prioritizes security of tenure, a constitutional right under Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which mandates that workers shall be protected from arbitrary dismissal. The Labor Code operationalizes this through Articles 294 to 299 (formerly Articles 279 to 284), which stipulate that an employee may only be dismissed for just or authorized causes, and only after observance of due process.

Just Causes for Dismissal

Just causes are employee-related faults that justify termination without separation pay. These include:

Serious misconduct or willful disobedience of lawful orders connected to work duties.
Gross and habitual neglect of duties.
Fraud or willful breach of trust.
Commission of a crime against the employer, their family, or representatives.
Other analogous causes.

Authorized Causes

Authorized causes stem from business necessities and entitle the employee to separation pay (typically one month's pay per year of service, or half if due to retrenchment or closure). These encompass:

Installation of labor-saving devices.
Redundancy.
Retrenchment to prevent losses.
Closure or cessation of operations.
Disease where continued employment is prejudicial to health.

Regardless of the cause, dismissal must not be arbitrary and must adhere to procedural safeguards to avoid being deemed illegal.

Due Process Requirements in Dismissal

Due process is dual: substantive (valid cause) and procedural (fair procedure). The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) outlines these in Department Order No. 147-15, which amends the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code.

For just causes, the "two-notice rule" applies:

Notice to Explain (First Notice): A written notice specifying the grounds for potential dismissal and giving the employee at least five days to submit a written explanation.
Opportunity to Be Heard: An administrative hearing or conference where the employee can defend themselves, present evidence, and be assisted by counsel or a representative.
Notice of Termination (Second Notice): A written decision informing the employee of the findings and the sanction imposed.

For authorized causes, requirements include:

A 30-day advance written notice to the employee and DOLE.
Fair and reasonable criteria for selection (e.g., in redundancy cases).
Payment of separation pay.

These notices must be served personally or by registered mail to ensure proof of receipt. The law emphasizes written documentation to prevent disputes over what was communicated.

The Role of Video Calls in Dismissal Proceedings

Video calls, facilitated by platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, or Google Meet, have become ubiquitous for remote work in the Philippines, especially under Republic Act No. 11165 (Telecommuting Act) and DOLE advisories during the pandemic. However, their use in dismissal processes introduces challenges.

Is a Video Call Sufficient for Notice?

Under prevailing jurisprudence, such as in Agabon v. NLRC (G.R. No. 158693, 2004), verbal notices or informal communications do not satisfy due process. Notices must be in writing to provide a clear record and allow the employee to respond adequately. A video call, even if recorded, is typically verbal and may not equate to a formal written notice unless supplemented by a written document (e.g., an email attachment or follow-up letter).

If an employer announces termination solely via video call without written notice, it risks invalidating the dismissal. For instance:

The first notice must detail charges in writing; a verbal discussion on video does not suffice.
The hearing can occur via video call if mutually agreed upon and if it ensures fairness (e.g., stable connection, ability to present evidence). DOLE Labor Advisory No. 17-20 allowed virtual hearings during the pandemic, but this does not extend to waiving written notices.
The termination notice must be written to formalize the decision.

In remote setups, employers might argue that video calls enhance accessibility, but courts prioritize employee rights. The Supreme Court in King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac (G.R. No. 166208, 2007) emphasized that due process must be "meaningful," not merely perfunctory.

Challenges Specific to Video Call Dismissals

Several issues arise when dismissals are attempted via video call:

Technical and Accessibility Barriers: Not all employees have reliable internet or devices, potentially violating equal protection. In rural Philippines, connectivity issues could render a video call ineffective, leading to claims of constructive dismissal if the employee feels coerced or uninformed.
Proof and Documentation: Video recordings may be admissible under Republic Act No. 8792 (Electronic Commerce Act) if authenticated, but they do not replace written notices. Disputes over what was said, technical glitches, or edited recordings can complicate proceedings.
Psychological Impact: Abrupt video call terminations can be dehumanizing, akin to "Zoom firings" criticized globally. In the Philippine context, this may intersect with cultural values of respect and face-to-face interaction, potentially supporting claims for moral damages.
Compliance with DOLE Requirements: For authorized causes, the 30-day notice to DOLE must be written and filed physically or electronically via DOLE's online portal. A video call does not fulfill this.
Hybrid Work Contexts: Under the Telecommuting Act, work arrangements must include termination policies. If a company's policy allows video call dismissals but contradicts labor law, it remains invalid.
Pandemic-Era Adaptations: DOLE issuances like Advisory No. 17 Series of 2020 permitted flexible work but reiterated due process adherence. Post-pandemic, reversion to stricter in-person norms is evident, though remote options persist.
Jurisdictional and Enforcement Issues: Employees in multinational firms might face video calls from overseas managers, raising questions of applicable law. However, Philippine labor law applies to work performed in the country.

Judicial Interpretations and Precedents

Philippine courts have not issued a landmark ruling specifically on video call dismissals, but analogous cases provide guidance. In Wenphil Corp. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 80587, 1989), the Supreme Court held that even if a valid cause exists, procedural lapses make dismissal illegal, warranting indemnity. Extending this, a video-only dismissal would likely be deemed procedurally deficient.

In Skippers United Pacific, Inc. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 144314, 2004), the Court stressed that hearings must afford ample opportunity for defense; a rushed video call might not qualify. Moreover, in constructive dismissal cases like Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc. v. Catinoy (G.R. No. 143275, 2001), indirect termination methods (e.g., verbal demotions) were invalidated—similar to ambiguous video announcements.

Hypothetically, if an employee challenges a video call dismissal before the NLRC, the burden shifts to the employer to prove compliance (Article 292, Labor Code). Failure could result in findings of illegal dismissal.

Remedies for Illegal Dismissal

An illegally dismissed employee may file a complaint with the NLRC within four years (Article 306, Labor Code). Remedies include:

Reinstatement without loss of seniority: Preferred unless strained relations exist.
Full Backwages: From dismissal date until reinstatement, including allowances and benefits.
Separation Pay in Lieu of Reinstatement: If reinstatement is infeasible.
Damages: Moral (for bad faith), exemplary (to deter), and attorney's fees (10% of award).

In video call cases, additional claims might include violation of data privacy under Republic Act No. 10173 if recordings are mishandled.

Preventive Measures for Employers

To mitigate risks, employers should:

Issue written notices via email or courier alongside video discussions.
Document video calls with consent and provide transcripts.
Train HR on due process in remote settings.
Update company policies to align with labor standards.

Conclusion

Illegal dismissal via video call poses substantial challenges in the Philippines, where labor protections demand rigorous adherence to written procedures and fair hearings. While technology facilitates efficiency, it cannot supplant the core principles of due process and security of tenure. Employees facing such terminations should promptly seek legal counsel, while employers must prioritize compliance to avoid costly litigation. As remote work endures, legislative or jurisprudential clarifications may emerge, but until then, caution remains key in balancing innovation with worker rights.