8/27/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Here, respondent did not prove the pertinent Hong Kong law that governs the contract of employment. Thus, the international law doctrine of presumed-identity approach or processual presumption applies. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours. Consequently, we apply Philippine labor laws in determining the issues in this case.[38] We grant the petition. I. Under Philippine law, workers are entitled to substantive and procedural due process before the termination of their employment. They may not be removed from employment without a valid or just cause as determined by law, and without going through the proper procedure.[39] The purpose of these two-pronged qualifications is to protect the working class from the employer's arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of its right to dismiss.[40] In this case, respondents failed to prove by substantial evidence that there was just or authorized cause for the termination of petitioner's employment. About a week into her job, or on August 11, 2007, petitioner received a warning letter from her employer requiring her "to improve [her] attentiveness on [her] performance within one month x x x" failing which the letter shall serve "as a written notice x x x that the x x x contract will be terminated with immediate effect on 11 September, 2007."[41] Nonetheless, after five days, or on August 16, 2007, petitioner's contract was terminated for the following reasons: "(1) disobey order (sic); (2) unmatch the contract which she submit before (sic); and (3) refuse to care my baby (sic)."[42] The grounds cited for the termination of petitioner's employment contract are considered just causes under Article 282 of the Labor Code,[43] but only if respondents were able to prove them. The burden of proving that there is just cause for termination is on the employer, who must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause. Failure to show that there was valid or just cause for termination would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.[44] Here, no evidence was presented to substantiate the employer's accusations. There was no showing of particular instances when petitioner supposedly disobeyed her employer and refused to take care of his baby. With respect to petitioner's alleged misrepresentation that she was single when in fact she was a single parent, there is also no showing how this affected her work as a domestic helper. In fact, being a mother herself puts petitioner in a better position to care for her employer's child. Where there is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for the termination of employment, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal.[45] Petitioner was likewise not afforded procedural due process. Procedural due process requires the employer to give the concerned employee at least https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65433 5/13