You Can Outsource the Work. You Can’t Outsource Due Process.
One worker was fired by a text message. Another by an email that pointed to a "warning" which, the Commission decided, had never really warned him at all. In both cases the employer may have had real reasons to act — and in both, the process is what lost them the case. If you manage people in the Philippines, here's the due process you can't skip, and how an employer of record in the Philippines builds it in so distance never becomes the excuse.
Two terminations, two findings, one lesson
In Sanderson v Brightest, a salesperson was let go by text message — no meeting, no conversation, no chance to respond. The employer pointed to earlier emails titled "Performance Warning" as evidence he'd been put on notice. The Commission read them differently: they were encouragement to improve, not a warning that his job was at risk. A clause in his contract allowing termination on one week's notice didn't rescue the situation either, and the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code hadn't been followed. He was awarded two weeks' gross pay (David Sanderson v Brightest Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1633).
In Pascua v Doessel, the engagement ended by email alleging a breach, with no process described in the dismissal at all. Different facts, different forum — but the same fault line runs through both: it wasn't only why the employer acted that mattered, it was how.
A valid reason is not a fair process
This is the part managers most often get wrong. A genuine reason to end a role and a fair way of ending it are tested separately — you need both. You can be entirely right that someone isn't working out and still lose an unfair dismissal claim, because the question the tribunal asks isn't only "was there a reason?" but "was the person warned, and given a real chance to respond?"
In Sanderson, even assuming the commercial case for the decision was sound, the gap that decided it was the missing warning and the missing opportunity to be heard. Reasons live on one side of the ledger; process lives on the other, and the tribunal totals both.
What due process requires, and why distance doesn't excuse it
The shape of a defensible exit is consistent across systems, even where the detail differs. In practice it means documented warnings that make clear a job is genuinely at risk, a real opportunity for the person to respond before any decision is made, following whatever procedure you've set out in your own policies, and complying with the local rules on grounds and notice.
Working remotely changes none of this. A worker being 5,000 km away doesn't lower the standard; if anything it raises the importance of getting documentation and sequence right, because so much of the relationship lives in writing already.
In the Philippines specifically
Philippine law sets a clear procedural bar, often called the two-notice rule, alongside a requirement that the reason fits a recognised category. At a high level, valid grounds fall into two families: just causes, which relate to the employee's own conduct or performance (serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect, fraud or breach of trust, and the like), and authorized causes, which are legitimate business reasons such as redundancy or retrenchment and carry their own separation-pay and notice obligations.
- 1
First notice
A written notice setting out the specific grounds and giving the employee a reasonable period to explain their side.
- 2
Opportunity to be heard
A genuine chance to respond — in writing or through a hearing or conference — which the employer must actually consider.
- 3
Second notice
A written notice of the decision, issued after weighing the explanation, stating the grounds relied on.
On exit there are also final-pay and pro-rated 13th-month obligations to settle. Keep the specifics current and case-by-case — confirm the present requirements with DOLE or a Philippine employment lawyer — but the principle holds: notice, a real chance to respond, then a reasoned decision. Budget a role with the end in mind, not just the monthly rate:
How an employer of record in the Philippines runs offboarding for you
As the legal employer, the EOR carries the process so you don't have to learn two systems under pressure. It advises on whether the grounds are sufficient, issues the notices in the right sequence, manages the hearing and the timeline, and settles final pay and statutory entitlements under Philippine law — while you stay focused on the business decision behind it.
That's the quiet value of the structure: the moment a role has to end is exactly when a foreign employer is most exposed and least sure of the rules, and it's exactly the moment the EOR is built for. It's one of three ways to hire we compare in our guide to employer of record Philippines vs contractor vs your own entity.
Hire — and offboard — without stepping in it
Tell us the role and we'll show you how an EOR handles the whole lifecycle, exit included, under Philippine law. Proposal within 24 hours.
Frequently asked questions
Can you dismiss a remote worker by text or email?
You can send the message, but a dismissal with no warning and no opportunity to respond can be found harsh, unjust or unreasonable, as it was for the worker fired by text in Sanderson.
Does an email titled "Performance Warning" count as a formal warning?
Only if it clearly signals that the person's job is at risk. In Sanderson, emails with that subject line were treated as encouragement to improve, not a warning of dismissal.
What is the two-notice rule in the Philippines?
In general terms, an employer must issue a first notice setting out the grounds and giving the employee a chance to explain, then a second notice communicating the decision after considering that explanation. Confirm the current requirements for your situation.
Does a contract clause allowing quick termination override the need for a fair process?
No. In Sanderson, a clause permitting termination on one week's notice did not excuse the absence of a genuine warning and a chance to respond.
How does an employer of record handle termination?
As the legal employer, the EOR runs a compliant termination process under local law, manages notice and final pay, and advises on whether grounds are sufficient.
General information, not legal advice. For your situation, get advice from a qualified Philippine or Australian employment lawyer. Primary sources for Pascua: [2024] FWC 2669 and [2025] FWC 1833. Sanderson facts from David Sanderson v Brightest Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1633. Philippine procedure derives from the Labor Code and DOLE issuances. Last updated 23 June 2026.
