8/27/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly two notices before terminating his employment. The first is the notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is being sought along with the opportunity for the employee to air his side, while the second is the subsequent notice of the employer's decision to dismiss him.[46] In this case, the August 11, 2007 warning letter would have very well served as the first notice that satisfies the above requirement. However, while the warning letter states that it will serve as notice of termination effective September 11, 2007 in case petitioner failed to improve her work performance, petitioner's employment was terminated much earlier and without further advice. Worse, the grounds stated in the August 16, 2007 termination letter were markedly different from the ground stated in the warning letter. Specifically, while the warning letter complained of petitioner's inattentiveness, the termination letter spoke of intentional acts allegedly committed by petitioner—i.e., disobedience, misrepresentation and refusal to do her job. It appears that petitioner's employer merely devised the reasons of termination to suit the requirements of Hong Kong law. The employment contract provides: 10. Either party may terminate this contract by giving one month's notice in writing or one month wages in lieu of notice. 11. Notwithstanding Clause 10, either party may in writing terminate this contract without notice or payment in lieu of the circumstances permitted by the Employment Ordinance, Chapter 57.[47] On the other hand, Employment Ordinance, Chapter 57 provides: 9. Termination of contract without notice by employer (1) An employer may terminate a contract of employment without notice or payment in lieu— x x x (a) if an employee, in relation to his employment— (i) wilfully disobeys a lawful and reasonable order; (ii) misconducts himself such conduct being inconsistent with the due and faithful discharge of his duties; (iii)is guilty of fraud or dishonesty; or (iv) is habitually neglectful in his duties; x x x[48] (Emphasis and italics in the original.) The termination letter expressed concerns that petitioner claimed she had never been confronted with.[49] She was left in the dark as regards the real reason for the termination of her employment, and was not given sufficient opportunity to rectify her shortcomings or explain her side. Equally repulsive is the fact that petitioner's employer did not furnish her a copy of the https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65433 6/13