Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila

* RECEIVED “\
owe UL 4S
mE

Eighteenth Congress
First Regular Session

HOUSE BILL NO. 2123

Introduced by Honorable Joaquin M. Chipeco, Jr.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

A young worker once said that if he would have his way he would
not work with the private sector. He explained that he cringes all the time
he sees those notices of termination of employment in the classified ads
section of newspapers. The ads usually go by informing the public that
so-and-so is no longer connected with the particular company and that
any transaction entered with him will not be honored by the corporation.
With the employee’s face splashed across the newspaper and with the
notice itself in fine print, the notice uncannily resembles a wanted poster
of fugitives from justice. To top it all, wanted posters or something akin
to them, are also sometimes published in the same newspaper space. They
run by stating that criminal case number so-and-so have been filed
against a particular person and that any information leading to his arrest
may be conveyed to the authorities.

Without a doubt, companies and other juridical persons have the
right to warn the public against present and future dealings with former
employees. It may be that previous employees either have the potential or
the inclination to harm the interests of the corporation, and it is in the
legitimate interest of the company to protect itself from possible lawsuits
from the public by forewarning the latter against continued dealings with
unscrupulous ex-employees.

However, while it cannot be denied that juridical entities have that
right to protect itself from dishonest former employees, it is clear that the
exercise of that right is open to abuse. An employee who resigns from her
work due to strained relations, misunderstanding, sexual harassment,
exposure of irregularities in high company echelons or under similar
unpleasant circumstances, but without fault on her part, may find herself
on the receiving end of a vindictive act on the part of his former boss by


having a notice of severance of employment relations published in the
newspapers. If that worker happens to be applying for another job at the
moment and her future employer becomes aware of these newspaper ads
concerning the worker, this could prejudice the employment opportunities
of the subject employee. While the prospective employee may be asked to
explain the circumstances surrounding the publication, a doubt
nevertheless has already been created by the publication and the
employer, given that there many other applicants for the position, would
most probably prefer workers unsullied by such publications.

There is therefore a need to define the legal parameters of
permissible and non-permissible notices of termination of employment.
Perhaps, the practice of publishing the same should be limited to
situations where the former employees were accountable officers, such as
cashiers, treasurers, collection officers, sales representatives, and others
who handle cash, property, stocks, etc. of the company. In addition, the
company must have reasonable grounds to believe, either due to bad
performance record, previous acts of dishonesty, etc., that the ex-
employees have the propensity to compromise the interests of the
company.

Applying the “balancing-of-interests” rule in constitutional law,
there is a need to balance the right of companies to be protected against
any corporate harm that might be inflicted to it by disgruntled employees
and the right of workers to preserve their integrity and reputation against
any undue aspersion that might be cast against them. When corporate
interests are prejudiced, the company still has a lot of resources to
compensate against the loss. However, the lowly workers have, in most
cases, only their character, industry and reputation to cope with
adversities. That is why, in the uneven contest between capital and labor
(with everything else being equal), our laws and jurisprudence have
always sided with labor to level the field, so to speak.

In view of all the foregoing considerations, the early approval of
this bill is earnestly requested.

oo)
_SOAQUIN M. CHIPECO, JR.

presentative
Lone District, Calamba City



Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila

Eighteenth Congress
First Regular Session

HOUSE BILL NO, hia

Introduced by Honorable Joaquin M. Chipeco, Jr.

AN ACT
REGULATING THE PRACTICE OF EMPLOYERS IN POSTING
NOTICES OF TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT OF FORMER
EMPLOYEES IN NEWSPAPERS, SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER
PUBLIC INFORMATION VENUES

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the

Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy. — It is the policy of the State to
protect all workers from abusive acts of employers. Every employer, in
publishing notices of termination, must observe good faith, act with

fairness, and respect the dignity of its former employees.

SEC. 2. Limitations on the Publication of Notices of Termination
of Employment. — No employer in the private sector shall publish notices
of termination of employment in newspapers, social media or other public
information venues unless upon the concurrence of the following

circumstances:


(a) The subject employee has, based on employee records,
committed any of the following acts:

[1] serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of
the lawful orders of the employer or the duly authorized representative of
the employer in connection with work;

[2] gross and habitual neglect of duties by the employee;

[3] fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed by
the employer or the duly authorized representative of the employer;

[4] commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the
person of the employer or any immediate member of the employer’s
family or against the person of the duly authorized representative of the
employer; and

[5] other causes analogous to the foregoing.

(b) The subject employee was an accountable officer or staff, to
include the following:

[1] cashiers

[2] treasurers

[3] collection officers

[4] sales agents or representatives

[5] management or supervisory employees


[6] other officers or employees who handle cash, property, stocks

and other assets of the employer; and

c) The employer has reasonable grounds to believe that the former
employee shall cause loss or damage to the property, stocks and other
assets of the employer or otherwise compromise the interests of the

employer.

SEC. 3. Penalties. - An employer who publishes a notice of
termination of employment in a newspaper, social media or other public
information venues in violation of Section 2 of this Act shall be liable to
pay the aggrieved former employee damages in an amount not less than
Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) but not more than Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00), upon the discretion of the court, without prejudice to

the filing of any criminal case.

SEC. 4. Liability When Committed By Entities Other Than Natural
Person. — If the violation, as provided for in Section 2 of this ‘Act, is
committed by a corporation, trust, firm, partnership, association or other
similar entity, the damages shall be imposed against the responsible

officer or officers.


SEC. 5. Repealing clause. - All laws, decrees, executive orders,
rules and regulations and other issuances or parts thereof inconsistent
with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, modified or amended

accordingly.
SEC. 6. Effectivity clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15)
days after its publication either in the Official Gazette or in two (2)

newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,