However, the fact of dismissal, if disputed, must be duly proven by the complainant. In relation thereto, Section 3, Rule 1 of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure provides for the suppletory application of the Rules of Court for proceedings before the LA and the NLRC.

It states that in the absence of any applicable provision in these Rules, and in order to effectuate the objectives of the  Labor Code, as amended, the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court of the Phllippines, as amended, may, in the interest of expeditious dispensation of labor justice and whenever practicable and convenient, be applied by analogy or in a  suppletory character and effect.

Section 11, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, in turn, provides that material averments in the complaint, other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied.

Thus, in illegal dismissal cases, it follows that when the employer fails to specifically deny the complainant employee’s material averments as to the circumstances of his dismissal, the employer is  deemed to have admitted the fact of dismissal and must then discharge his burden of proving that the dismissal of the employee was valid.

In Fernandez vs. Kalookan Slaughterhouse Incorporatec [G.R. No. 225075, June 19, 2019], the Court

deemed as an admission by silence the employer’s failure to rebut petitioner employee’s allegation that on a specific date, he was informed by the employer’s personnel, who exercised control over petitioner’s means and methods, that he could no longer report for work.

Hence, in the case of Guinto vs. Sto. Niño Lang-Zeny [G.R. No. 250987. March 29, 2022], the employer did not specifically deny and rebut complainant’s allegations as to the fact of his dismissal from employment. Meanwhile, in an attempt to relieve themselves from liability, the company raised the defense that there was no employer-employee relationship between the Consignee and complainant.

In other words, the company did not specifically deny that its representative, on separate occasions, told complainant to leave and to stop going to work. Thus, the employer is deemed to have admitted complainant’s allegations as to his dismissal from work.

Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court found that the complainant, who was a regular employee of the company, had been illegally dismissed from his employment considering: first, the latter’s deemed admission of the fact of dismissal; and second, the absence of any clear showing of a just or valid cause for such dismissal.

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:

Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:

Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing

Procedural Due Process for Other Types of Employment

Notice to Explain: Contents and Requirements