1) What “commitment letters” are in Philippine workplaces

In Philippine labor practice, a “commitment letter” usually refers to a written undertaking required or requested by an employer—often after an infraction, performance issue, or workplace incident—where an employee:

acknowledges a rule, standard, prior warning, or investigation;
commits to correct behavior or improve performance within a period; and/or
accepts that repetition or non-compliance may lead to further disciplinary action, sometimes stated as “including termination.”

These documents go by many names: undertaking, written commitment, performance commitment, last warning, final warning, return-to-work undertaking, compliance pledge, or (in stricter form) a “last chance agreement”.

The legal question is almost never whether a commitment letter exists, but whether (a) the employee’s later act constitutes a lawful ground to dismiss under Philippine labor law and (b) the employer complied with substantive and procedural due process.

2) The controlling principle: security of tenure and statutory grounds for dismissal

Philippine law strongly protects security of tenure (1987 Constitution). An employee may be dismissed only for causes allowed by law, and the employer must prove the legality of the dismissal.

A. Termination must be anchored on a lawful cause

For regular employees, dismissal generally falls into:

Just causes (fault-based) under the Labor Code (commonly cited as Article 297 [formerly Art. 282]), such as:

serious misconduct;
willful disobedience of lawful orders;
gross and habitual neglect of duties;
fraud or willful breach of trust;
commission of a crime against employer or its representatives; and
other analogous causes.

Authorized causes (business-based) under the Labor Code (commonly cited as Article 298 [formerly Art. 283] and Article 299 [formerly Art. 284]), such as:

redundancy, retrenchment, closure, installation of labor-saving devices; and
disease under conditions specified by law.

A commitment letter does not expand these statutory categories. It cannot invent a new “ground” for dismissal that the Labor Code does not recognize.

B. Burden of proof and standard of evidence

In illegal dismissal disputes, the employer bears the burden to show dismissal was for a valid cause and done with due process. The standard is substantial evidence (relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate).

3) What a commitment letter can (and cannot) legally do

A. What it can do

A properly handled commitment letter can be powerful evidence that:

Rules and standards were communicated. If the letter recites specific policies (attendance, safety, confidentiality, code of conduct) and the employee acknowledges them, it supports the employer’s claim that the employee knew the rules.
The employee was warned and given a chance to correct. Repeated violations often turn “minor” infractions into a habitual problem; a paper trail matters.
There was an admission or explanation. If the letter contains an employee’s narrative or admission (voluntary and not coerced), it can support factual findings.
Progressive discipline was applied. Many workplaces adopt progressive discipline (verbal warning → written warning → suspension → dismissal). Commitment letters often function as the written-warning stage.
A “last chance” framework was offered. Philippine labor practice can recognize “last chance” arrangements as part of management prerogative—but only within the bounds of labor standards and due process.

B. What it cannot do

A commitment letter cannot validly:

Waive statutory rights to security of tenure and due process. Clauses like “I waive my right to notice/hearing” or “I agree I can be terminated immediately without due process” are legally risky and commonly ineffective.
Cure an otherwise invalid dismissal. A signature does not automatically make a termination valid. The employer still must prove a lawful cause and follow the required procedure.
Convert a non-dismissible issue into a dismissible one by mere labeling. Calling something “serious misconduct” in a letter does not make it so; the facts and proportionality control.
Bind the employee if obtained through coercion, misrepresentation, or unfairness. In labor cases, documents are scrutinized for voluntariness and fairness, especially when signed as a condition for continued employment.

4) When a “breach” of a commitment letter can support termination

A termination “based on a commitment letter” is legally sustainable only if the later breach also fits an allowable just cause (or another lawful termination mode, like probationary standards). Practically, employers use the commitment letter to connect the later breach to one of these grounds:

A. Willful disobedience (insubordination)

Willful disobedience generally requires:

a lawful and reasonable order related to duties; and
willful refusal to comply (intentional, not merely inadvertent).

A commitment letter can help show:

the order/rule was known; and
the employee was explicitly directed to comply.

Common examples:

repeated refusal to follow safety protocols after written undertaking;
repeated noncompliance with lawful work processes after written warning.

Key limitation: mere inability, confusion, or a one-off lapse—especially without intent—may fall short of “willful.”

B. Serious misconduct

Misconduct must be serious, related to work, and show wrongful intent. A commitment letter may matter if it documents:

prior similar offenses; or
the employee’s acknowledgment of the gravity.

Examples that may qualify (depending on evidence):

violence, grave threats, serious harassment, serious dishonesty;
major safety breaches creating real danger.

A “commitment letter breach” by itself is not “serious misconduct” unless the underlying act is.

C. Gross and habitual neglect of duties

Neglect becomes dismissal-level when it is gross and habitual. Commitment letters are often used for:

chronic tardiness/absences;
repeated failure to perform core tasks;
repeated quality failures.

But: negligence-based dismissal usually requires pattern and documentation. Employers should show:

clear standards,
repeated failures,
warnings/opportunities to improve,
and that the failures materially affect the job.

D. Fraud or willful breach of trust (loss of trust and confidence)

For managerial employees (and certain fiduciary roles), employers have wider latitude to invoke loss of trust—but still must show a factual basis. For rank-and-file, the act must be clearly shown to be willful and related to trust duties (cash handling, property custody, sensitive data, etc.).

Commitment letters are common after:

improper handling of funds,
data confidentiality breaches,
policy violations in procurement or conflicts of interest.

Limitation: “loss of trust” cannot be a shortcut for weak evidence; it must rest on substantial evidence of an act that justifies the loss of trust.

E. “Analogous causes”

Employers sometimes cite “analogous causes” to cover conduct similar in nature to the listed just causes—often involving:

repeated violations of reasonable company rules,
gross inefficiency tied to job requirements,
or conduct incompatible with continued employment.

A commitment letter may help show the employee was warned that repetition would have consequences, but the employer still must show the conduct is comparable in gravity to just causes.

5) Commitment letters in performance management (PIPs and “improvement undertakings”)

A. Poor performance is not automatically “just cause”

Under Philippine labor doctrine, poor performance can justify termination when properly documented and when it meets a legally acceptable framework (often treated under neglect/inefficiency/analogous causes, depending on the facts). A commitment letter or Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) is often used to show:

reasonable performance standards existed;
standards were communicated;
employee was given time and support to improve;
evaluations were fair, job-related, and consistent.

B. Legal pitfalls

Performance-based commitment letters become problematic when:

standards are vague (“improve attitude,” “do better”);
targets are impossible or arbitrary;
evaluation is biased or inconsistent;
no real opportunity/support is provided; or
termination is predetermined and the commitment letter is used as cover.

6) Due process remains mandatory—even with a signed undertaking

A. Just-cause procedural due process: the “two-notice rule”

For dismissal based on just causes, employers must generally observe:

First notice (charge notice) Must specify the acts/omissions complained of and give the employee a meaningful chance to explain.
Opportunity to be heard A hearing is not always a full-blown trial, but there must be a real opportunity to respond, present evidence, and be considered—especially when facts are contested.
Second notice (notice of decision) Must communicate the employer’s decision and reasons after considering the employee’s explanation.

Philippine Supreme Court decisions commonly cited for due process standards include Agabon v. NLRC (G.R. No. 158693, Nov. 17, 2004) and King of Kings Transport v. Mamac (G.R. No. 166208, June 29, 2007) for notice requirements, and Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot (G.R. No. 151378, Mar. 28, 2005) for authorized-cause procedural consequences.

B. Authorized-cause due process is different

Commitment letters are usually irrelevant to authorized causes (redundancy, retrenchment, closure), which require:

written notice to the employee and DOLE at least 30 days before effectivity (plus separation pay rules).

C. What if the employer had a valid cause but defective procedure?

A dismissal may be upheld as substantively valid yet still expose the employer to nominal damages for procedural defects (as recognized in Agabon for just causes, and Jaka for authorized causes), rather than reinstatement—depending on the case circumstances.

D. Clauses attempting to waive due process

Language in a commitment letter like:

“I agree I may be terminated immediately without notice/hearing,” or
“I waive my right to due process,” is legally precarious. Even if signed, employers commonly remain expected to comply with the legally required procedure.

7) Evidentiary value: how labor tribunals typically view commitment letters

Commitment letters tend to be persuasive when they are:

specific (dates, acts, rules violated);
consistent with company policy and past enforcement;
voluntary (no intimidation, no deception);
not isolated (supported by incident reports, logs, CCTV, audit trails, complainant statements);
part of progressive discipline (prior warnings/suspensions documented);
acknowledged as received (employee signature; if refusal, witnessed notation).

They are less persuasive or even harmful to the employer when they appear:

coerced (“sign or you’re fired” with no chance to read, no explanation);
pre-filled confessions not reflecting the employee’s own statement;
vague (“any violation will result in termination” without defining what violation);
used as substitute for investigation (no real fact-finding);
inconsistent with actual practice (selective enforcement; similarly situated employees treated differently);
double punishment (employee already penalized for the same act, then later “terminated for it” using the letter as a hook).

8) Common legal attacks against commitment-letter-based terminations

A. “The letter was not voluntary”

Employees often claim:

intimidation, threats, or harassment;
signing under extreme pressure;
no chance to read/understand;
language barriers.

Employers strengthen defensibility by showing:

the letter was explained;
employee had time to review;
employee could attach an explanation;
a witness (HR/manager) documented the process;
union/representative involvement where applicable.

B. “No just cause—only a contractual clause”

A frequent issue: the employer argues “breach of commitment letter = termination.” Legally, the analysis should be: what act occurred, and does it constitute a just cause (or valid performance-based/probationary termination), supported by evidence?

C. “Penalty is disproportionate”

Even with repeated infractions, dismissal can be struck down if the penalty is grossly disproportionate relative to:

gravity of offense,
job nature,
length of service,
prior record,
and whether progressive discipline was followed consistently.

D. “No new offense—double jeopardy / prior penalty already imposed”

If the commitment letter was executed after an incident for which the employee was already suspended or otherwise penalized, terminating later for the same incident may be viewed as unfair. The commitment letter should operate prospectively (a warning for future compliance), not as a delayed second punishment.

E. “Employer condoned the act”

If management repeatedly tolerated the behavior (e.g., habitual tardiness) without discipline and suddenly invoked a commitment letter to justify termination, tribunals may consider condonation or inconsistent enforcement, depending on facts.

F. “Retaliation or discrimination”

If the commitment letter appears timed to:

union activity,
filing complaints,
pregnancy or protected status issues,
whistleblowing, it can be attacked as bad faith or unlawful motive, which may affect credibility and remedies.

9) Special contexts where commitment letters often appear

A. Probationary employment

A probationary employee may be terminated for:

just causes, or
failure to meet reasonable standards made known at engagement.

Commitment letters can help show the employee was reminded of standards and given a chance to comply, but employers still should issue proper notices and avoid vague, shifting standards.

B. Unionized settings and CBAs

Where a CBA exists, discipline may be subject to:

specific procedural steps,
notice requirements,
grievance machinery,
union representation norms.

A commitment letter cannot override CBA protections; failure to follow CBA procedure can undermine the employer’s case.

C. Remote work and digital evidence

Commitment letters are common for:

timekeeping violations,
confidentiality/data handling,
cybersecurity policy breaches.

Employers must ensure evidence collection respects lawful policies and, where applicable, privacy/data protection obligations (e.g., proportional monitoring, documented IT policies).

10) Drafting and implementation: what makes a commitment letter legally “strong” (and what makes it risky)

A. Features that improve defensibility

A commitment letter is more defensible when it:

States the specific policy/rule and attaches or references it clearly.
Describes the incident (date, time, place, act) in neutral terms.
Records the employee’s explanation or allows an attached explanation.
Uses corrective, not coercive language (no forced confession).
Avoids waivers of due process and instead notes that any future violation will be dealt with “in accordance with company rules and applicable law.”
Matches the disciplinary matrix (if the company has one).
Is signed with adequate opportunity to read; if refusal, the refusal is documented with witnesses.
Is supported by contemporaneous records (attendance logs, memos, incident reports).

B. Clauses that tend to create legal vulnerability

High-risk provisions include:

automatic dismissal language (“one more lapse and you are terminated”) without tying it to lawful cause and due process;
blanket admissions (“I admit all accusations”) inconsistent with the employee’s narrative;
overly broad commitments (“I will never make mistakes again”);
ambiguous triggers (“any violation” without specifying category or gravity);
forced waivers (“I waive my rights to contest any future dismissal”).

A commitment letter should not be treated as a “self-executing termination contract.”

11) Practical legal conclusion: what the commitment letter really is in termination cases

In Philippine labor law, an employer-required commitment letter is best understood as:

evidence (of notice, warning, acknowledgment, standards, and sometimes admission); and
a disciplinary-management tool (often within progressive discipline);

but not a standalone, automatic legal ground for dismissal.

A dismissal anchored on a “breach of a commitment letter” will generally be upheld only when the employer proves, with substantial evidence, that:

the employee actually committed the later act complained of;
the act fits a just cause (or valid probationary/performance ground recognized in doctrine);
the penalty of dismissal is proportionate under the circumstances and consistent with policy/practice; and
the employer observed procedural due process (two notices and a meaningful opportunity to be heard for just-cause dismissal).

When any of these elements fail, the termination risks being declared illegal dismissal, with potential exposure to reinstatement and backwages (or separation pay in lieu where applicable), and/or damages depending on the case facts.