G.R. No.

192571

July 23, 2013

The terms of your employment are:

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, PHILIPPINES, CECILLE A. TERRIBLE, EDWIN D. FEIST, MARIA OLIVIA T.

YABUTMISA, TERESITA C. BERNARDO, AND ALLAN G. ALMAZAR, Petitioners,
vs.
PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ, Respondent.
DECISION

Effectivity : February 15, 2005 to August 14, 2005

Basic Salary : P110,000.00/ month
It is understood that you agree to abide by all existing policies, rules and regulations of the company, as well
as those, which may be hereinafter promulgated.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated December 10,2009 and
Resolution3 dated June 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 101045 which pronounced that
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) did not gravely abuse its discretion when it ruled that
respondent Pearlie Ann F. Alcaraz (Alcaraz) was illegally dismissed from her employment.
The Facts
On June 27, 2004, petitioner Abbott Laboratories, Philippines (Abbott) caused the publication in a major
broadsheet newspaper of its need for a Medical and Regulatory Affairs Manager (Regulatory Affairs Manager)
who would: (a) be responsible for drug safety surveillance operations, staffing, and budget; (b) lead the
development and implementation of standard operating procedures/policies for drug safety surveillance and
vigilance; and (c) act as the primary interface with internal and external customers regarding safety operations
and queries.4 Alcaraz - who was then a Regulatory Affairs and Information Manager at Aventis Pasteur
Philippines, Incorporated (another pharmaceutical company like Abbott) showed interest and submitted her
application on October 4, 2004.5
On December 7, 2004, Abbott formally offered Alcaraz the abovementioned position which was an item under
the companys Hospira Affiliate Local Surveillance Unit (ALSU) department. 6 In Abbotts offer sheet.7 it was
stated that Alcaraz was to be employed on a probationary basis. 8 Later that day, she accepted the said offer
and received an electronic mail (e-mail) from Abbotts Recruitment Officer, petitioner Teresita C. Bernardo
(Bernardo), confirming the same. Attached to Bernardos e-mail were Abbotts organizational chart and a job
description of Alcarazs work.9
On February 12, 2005, Alcaraz signed an employment contract which stated, inter alia, that she was to be
placed on probation for a period of six (6) months beginning February 15, 2005 to August 14, 2005. The said
contract was also signed by Abbotts General Manager, petitioner Edwin Feist (Feist): 10
PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT
Dear Pearl,
After having successfully passed the pre-employment requirements, you are hereby appointed as follows:
Position Title : Regulatory Affairs Manager
Department : Hospira

Nature of Employment : Probationary

Unless renewed, probationary appointment expires on the date indicated subject to earlier termination by the
Company for any justifiable reason.
If you agree to the terms and conditions of your employment, please signify your conformity below and return
a copy to HRD.
Welcome to Abbott!
Very truly yours,
Sgd.
EDWIN D. FEIST
General Manager
CONFORME:
Sgd.
PEARLIE ANN FERRER-ALCARAZ
During Alcarazs pre-employment orientation, petitioner Allan G. Almazar (Almazar), Hospiras Country
Transition Manager, briefed her on her duties and responsibilities as Regulatory Affairs Manager, stating that:
(a) she will handle the staff of Hospira ALSU and will directly report to Almazar on matters regarding Hopiras
local operations, operational budget, and performance evaluation of the Hospira ALSU Staff who are on
probationary status; (b) she must implement Abbotts Code of Good Corporate Conduct (Code of Conduct),
office policies on human resources and finance, and ensure that Abbott will hire people who are fit in the
organizational discipline; (c) petitioner Kelly Walsh (Walsh), Manager of the Literature Drug Surveillance Drug
Safety of Hospira, will be her immediate supervisor; (d) she should always coordinate with Abbotts human
resource officers in the management and discipline of the staff; (e) Hospira ALSU will spin off from Abbott in
early 2006 and will be officially incorporated and known as Hospira, Philippines. In the interim, Hospira ALSU
operations will still be under Abbotts management, excluding the technical aspects of the operations which is
under the control and supervision of Walsh; and (f) the processing of information and/or raw material data
subject of Hospira ALSU operations will be strictly confined and controlled under the computer system and
network being maintained and operated from the United States. For this purpose, all those involved in Hospira
ALSU are required to use two identification cards: one, to identify them as Abbotts employees and another, to
identify them as Hospira employees.11

On March 3, 2005, petitioner Maria Olivia T. Yabut-Misa (Misa), Abbotts Human Resources (HR) Director, sent
Alcaraz an e-mail which contained an explanation of the procedure for evaluating the performance of
probationary employees and further indicated that Abbott had only one evaluation system for all of its
employees. Alcaraz was also given copies of Abbotts Code of Conduct and Probationary Performance
Standards and Evaluation (PPSE) and Performance Excellence Orientation Modules (Performance Modules)
which she had to apply in line with her task of evaluating the Hospira ALSU staff.12
Abbotts PPSE procedure mandates that the job performance of a probationary employee should be formally
reviewed and discussed with the employee at least twice: first on the third month and second on the fifth
month from the date of employment. The necessary Performance Improvement Plan should also be made
during the third-month review in case of a gap between the employees performance and the standards set.
These performance standards should be discussed in detail with the employee within the first two (2) weeks on
the job. It was equally required that a signed copy of the PPSE form must be submitted to Abbotts Human
Resources Department (HRD) and shall serve as documentation of the employees performance during his/her
probationary period. This shall form the basis for recommending the confirmation or termination of the
probationary employment.13
During the course of her employment, Alcaraz noticed that some of the staff had disciplinary problems. Thus,
she would reprimand them for their unprofessional behavior such as non-observance of the dress code,
moonlighting, and disrespect of Abbott officers. However, Alcarazs method of management was considered by
Walsh to be "too strict."14 Alcaraz approached Misa to discuss these concerns and was told to "lie low" and let
Walsh handle the matter. Misa even assured her that Abbotts HRD would support her in all her management
decisions.15
On April 12, 2005, Alcaraz received an e-mail from Misa requesting immediate action on the staffs
performance evaluation as their probationary periods were about to end. This Alcaraz eventually submitted. 16
On April 20, 2005, Alcaraz had a meeting with petitioner Cecille Terrible (Terrible), Abbotts former HR Director,
to discuss certain issues regarding staff performance standards. In the course thereof, Alcaraz accidentally saw
a printed copy of an e-mail sent by Walsh to some staff members which essentially contained queries
regarding the formers job performance. Alcaraz asked if Walshs action was the normal process of evaluation.
Terrible said that it was not.17
On May 16, 2005, Alcaraz was called to a meeting with Walsh and Terrible where she was informed that she
failed to meet the regularization standards for the position of Regulatory Affairs Manager.18 Thereafter, Walsh
and Terrible requested Alcaraz to tender her resignation, else they be forced to terminate her services. She
was also told that, regardless of her choice, she should no longer report for work and was asked to surrender
her office identification cards. She requested to be given one week to decide on the same, but to no avail. 19
On May 17, 2005, Alcaraz told her administrative assistant, Claude Gonzales (Gonzales), that she would be on
leave for that day. However, Gonzales told her that Walsh and Terrible already announced to the whole Hospira
ALSU staff that Alcaraz already resigned due to health reasons.20
On May 23, 2005, Walsh, Almazar, and Bernardo personally handed to Alcaraz a letter stating that her services
had been terminated effective May 19, 2005.21 The letter detailed the reasons for Alcarazs termination
particularly, that Alcaraz: (a) did not manage her time effectively; (b) failed to gain the trust of her staff and
to build an effective rapport with them; (c) failed to train her staff effectively; and (d) was not able to obtain
the knowledge and ability to make sound judgments on case processing and article review which were
necessary for the proper performance of her duties.22 On May 27, 2005, Alcaraz received another copy of the
said termination letter via registered mail.23

Alcaraz felt that she was unjustly terminated from her employment and thus, filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and damages against Abbott and its officers, namely, Misa, Bernardo, Almazar, Walsh, Terrible, and
Feist.24 She claimed that she should have already been considered as a regular and not a probationary
employee given Abbotts failure to inform her of the reasonable standards for her regularization upon her
engagement as required under Article 29525 of the Labor Code. In this relation, she contended that while her
employment contract stated that she was to be engaged on a probationary status, the same did not indicate
the standards on which her regularization would be based.26 She further averred that the individual petitioners
maliciously connived to illegally dismiss her when: (a) they threatened her with termination; (b) she was
ordered not to enter company premises even if she was still an employee thereof; and (c) they publicly
announced that she already resigned in order to humiliate her.27
On the contrary, petitioners maintained that Alcaraz was validly terminated from her probationary employment
given her failure to satisfy the prescribed standards for her regularization which were made known to her at
the time of her engagement.28
The LA Ruling
In a Decision dated March 30, 2006,29 the LA dismissed Alcarazs complaint for lack of merit.
The LA rejected Alcarazs argument that she was not informed of the reasonable standards to qualify as a
regular employee considering her admissions that she was briefed by Almazar on her work during her preemployment orientation meeting30 and that she received copies of Abbotts Code of Conduct and Performance
Modules which were used for evaluating all types of Abbott employees. 31 As Alcaraz was unable to meet the
standards set by Abbott as per her performance evaluation, the LA ruled that the termination of her
probationary employment was justified. 32 Lastly, the LA found that there was no evidence to conclude that
Abbotts officers and employees acted in bad faith in terminating Alcarazs employment. 33
Displeased with the LAs ruling, Alcaraz filed an appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
The NLRC Ruling
On September 15, 2006, the NLRC rendered a Decision,34 annulling and setting aside the LAs ruling, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 31 March 2006 [sic] is hereby reversed, annulled and set
aside and judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Finding respondents Abbot [sic] and individual respondents to have committed illegal dismissal;
2. Respondents are ordered to immediately reinstate complainant to her former position without loss
of seniority rights immediately upon receipt hereof;
3. To jointly and severally pay complainant backwages computed from 16 May 2005 until finality of
this decision. As of the date hereof the backwages is computed at
a. Backwages for 15 months b. 13th month pay -

PhP 1,650,

110,

The CA likewise denied the Second CA Petition in a Resolution dated May 18, 2010 (May 18, 2010 Resolution)
PhP 1,760,000.00
and ruled that the NLRC was correct in upholding the execution of the NLRC Decision. 49 Thus, petitioners filed a
motion for reconsideration.

TOTAL
4. Respondents are ordered to pay complainant moral damages of P50,000.00 and exemplary
damages ofP50,000.00.
5. Respondents are also ordered to pay attorneys fees of 10% of the total award.
6. All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.35

The NLRC reversed the findings of the LA and ruled that there was no evidence showing that Alcaraz had been
apprised of her probationary status and the requirements which she should have complied with in order to be a
regular employee.36 It held that Alcarazs receipt of her job description and Abbotts Code of Conduct and
Performance Modules was not equivalent to her being actually informed of the performance standards upon
which she should have been evaluated on.37 It further observed that Abbott did not comply with its own
standard operating procedure in evaluating probationary employees. 38 The NLRC was also not convinced that
Alcaraz was terminated for a valid cause given that petitioners allegation of Alcarazs "poor performance"
remained unsubstantiated.39

While the petitioners motion for reconsideration of the CAs May 18, 2010 Resolution was pending, Alcaraz
again moved for the issuance of a writ of execution before the LA. On June 7, 2010, petitioners received the
LAs order granting Alcarazs motion for execution which they in turn appealed to the NLRC through a
Memorandum of Appeal dated June 16, 2010 (June 16, 2010 Memorandum of Appeal ) on the ground that
the implementation of the LAs order would render its motion for reconsideration moot and academic. 50
Meanwhile, petitioners motion for reconsideration of the CAs May 18, 2010 Resolution in the Second CA
Petition was denied via a Resolution dated October 4, 2010.51 This attained finality on January 10, 2011 for
petitioners failure to timely appeal the same.52 Hence, as it stands, only the issues in the First CA petition are
left to be resolved.
Incidentally, in her Comment dated November 15, 2010, Alcaraz also alleges that petitioners were guilty of
forum shopping when they filed the Second CA Petition pending the resolution of their motion for
reconsideration of the CAs December 10, 2009 Decision i.e., the decision in the First CA Petition. 53 She also
contends that petitioners have not complied with the certification requirement under Section 5, Rule 7 of the
Rules of Court when they failed to disclose in the instant petition the filing of the June 16, 2010 Memorandum
of Appeal filed before the NLRC.54

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution dated July 31,
2007.40
Aggrieved, petitioners filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 101045 (First CA Petition),
alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of NLRC when it ruled that Alcaraz was illegally dismissed. 41
Pending resolution of the First CA Petition, Alcaraz moved for the execution of the NLRCs Decision before the
LA, which petitioners strongly opposed. The LA denied the said motion in an Order dated July 8, 2008 which
was, however, eventually reversed on appeal by the NLRC. 42 Due to the foregoing, petitioners filed another
Petition for Certiorari with the CA, docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 111318 (Second CA Petition), assailing the
propriety of the execution of the NLRC decision.43
The CA Ruling
With regard to the First CA Petition, the CA, in a Decision 44 dated December 10, 2009, affirmed the ruling of
the NLRC and held that the latter did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in finding that Alcaraz was
illegally dismissed.
It observed that Alcaraz was not apprised at the start of her employment of the reasonable standards under
which she could qualify as a regular employee.45 This was based on its examination of the employment
contract which showed that the same did not contain any standard of performance or any stipulation that
Alcaraz shall undergo a performance evaluation before she could qualify as a regular employee. 46 It also found
that Abbott was unable to prove that there was any reasonable ground to terminate Alcarazs
employment.47 Abbott moved for the reconsideration of the aforementioned ruling which was, however, denied
by the CA in a Resolution48 dated June 9, 2010.

The Issues Before the Court

The following issues have been raised for the Courts resolution: (a) whether or not petitioners are guilty of
forum shopping and have violated the certification requirement under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court;
(b) whether or not Alcaraz was sufficiently informed of the reasonable standards to qualify her as a regular
employee; (c) whether or not Alcaraz was validly terminated from her employment; and (d) whether or not the
individual petitioners herein are liable.
The Courts Ruling
A. Forum Shopping and
Violation of Section 5, Rule 7
of the Rules of Court.
At the outset, it is noteworthy to mention that the prohibition against forum shopping is different from a
violation of the certification requirement under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. In Sps. Ong v. CA, 55 the
Court explained that:
x x x The distinction between the prohibition against forum shopping and the certification requirement should
by now be too elementary to be misunderstood. To reiterate, compliance with the certification against forum
shopping is separate from and independent of the avoidance of the act of forum shopping itself. There is a
difference in the treatment between failure to comply with the certification requirement and violation of the
prohibition against forum shopping not only in terms of imposable sanctions but also in the manner of
enforcing them. The former constitutes sufficient cause for the dismissal without prejudice to the filing of the
complaint or initiatory pleading upon motion and after hearing, while the latter is a ground for summary
dismissal thereof and for direct contempt. x x x. 56
As to the first, forum shopping takes place when a litigant files multiple suits involving the same parties, either
simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable judgment. It exists where the elements of litis pendentia

are present, namely: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties who represent the same interests in both
actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c)
the identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two (2) cases is such that any judgment that
may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in
the other case.57
In this case, records show that, except for the element of identity of parties, the elements of forum shopping
do not exist. Evidently, the First CA Petition was instituted to question the ruling of the NLRC that Alcaraz was
illegally dismissed. On the other hand, the Second CA Petition pertains to the propriety of the enforcement of
the judgment award pending the resolution of the First CA Petition and the finality of the decision in the labor
dispute between Alcaraz and the petitioners. Based on the foregoing, a judgment in the Second CA Petition will
not constitute res judicata insofar as the First CA Petition is concerned. Thus, considering that the two petitions
clearly cover different subject matters and causes of action, there exists no forum shopping.
As to the second, Alcaraz further imputes that the petitioners violated the certification requirement under
Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court58 by not disclosing the fact that it filed the June 16, 2010 Memorandum
of Appeal before the NLRC in the instant petition.
In this regard, Section 5(b), Rule 7 of the Rules of Court requires that a plaintiff who files a case should
provide a complete statement of the present status of any pending case if the latter involves the same issues
as the one that was filed. If there is no such similar pending case, Section 5(a) of the same rule provides that
the plaintiff is obliged to declare under oath that to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is
pending.
Records show that the issues raised in the instant petition and those in the June 16, 2010 Memorandum of
Appeal filed with the NLRC likewise cover different subject matters and causes of action. In this case, the
validity of Alcarazs dismissal is at issue whereas in the said Memorandum of Appeal, the propriety of the
issuance of a writ of execution was in question.
Thus, given the dissimilar issues, petitioners did not have to disclose in the present petition the filing of their
June 16, 2010 Memorandum of Appeal with the NLRC. In any event, considering that the issue on the
propriety of the issuance of a writ of execution had been resolved in the Second CA Petition which in fact had
already attained finality the matter of disclosing the June 16, 2010 Memorandum of Appeal is now moot and
academic.
Having settled the foregoing procedural matter, the Court now proceeds to resolve the substantive issues.
B. Probationary employment;
grounds for termination.
A probationary employee, like a regular employee, enjoys security of tenure. However, in cases of probationary
employment, aside from just or authorized causes of termination, an additional ground is provided under
Article 295 of the Labor Code, i.e., the probationary employee may also be terminated for failure to qualify as
a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards made known by the employer to the
employee at the time of the engagement.59 Thus, the services of an employee who has been engaged on
probationary basis may be terminated for any of the following: (a) a just or (b) an authorized cause; and (c)
when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards prescribed by the
employer.60
Corollary thereto, Section 6(d), Rule I, Book VI of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code provides that if
the employer fails to inform the probationary employee of the reasonable standards upon which the

regularization would be based on at the time of the engagement, then the said employee shall be deemed a
regular employee, viz.:
(d) In all cases of probationary employment, the employer shall make known to the employee the standards
under which he will qualify as a regular employee at the time of his engagement. Where no standards are
made known to the employee at that time, he shall be deemed a regular employee.
In other words, the employer is made to comply with two (2) requirements when dealing with a probationary
employee: first, the employer must communicate the regularization standards to the probationary employee;
and second, the employer must make such communication at the time of the probationary employees
engagement. If the employer fails to comply with either, the employee is deemed as a regular and not a
probationary employee.
Keeping with these rules, an employer is deemed to have made known the standards that would qualify a
probationary employee to be a regular employee when it has exerted reasonable efforts to apprise the
employee of what he is expected to do or accomplish during the trial period of probation. This goes without
saying that the employee is sufficiently made aware of his probationary status as well as the length of time of
the probation.
The exception to the foregoing is when the job is self-descriptive in nature, for instance, in the case of maids,
cooks, drivers, or messengers.61 Also, in Aberdeen Court, Inc. v. Agustin,62 it has been held that the rule on
notifying a probationary employee of the standards of regularization should not be used to exculpate an
employee who acts in a manner contrary to basic knowledge and common sense in regard to which there is no
need to spell out a policy or standard to be met. In the same light, an employees failure to perform the duties
and responsibilities which have been clearly made known to him constitutes a justifiable basis for a
probationary employees non-regularization.
In this case, petitioners contend that Alcaraz was terminated because she failed to qualify as a regular
employee according to Abbotts standards which were made known to her at the time of her engagement.
Contrarily, Alcaraz claims that Abbott never apprised her of these standards and thus, maintains that she is a
regular and not a mere probationary employee.
The Court finds petitioners assertions to be well-taken.
A punctilious examination of the records reveals that Abbott had indeed complied with the above-stated
requirements. This conclusion is largely impelled by the fact that Abbott clearly conveyed to Alcaraz her duties
and responsibilities as Regulatory Affairs Manager prior to, during the time of her engagement, and the
incipient stages of her employment. On this score, the Court finds it apt to detail not only the incidents which
point out to the efforts made by Abbott but also those circumstances which would show that Alcaraz was wellapprised of her employers expectations that would, in turn, determine her regularization:
(a) On June 27, 2004, Abbott caused the publication in a major broadsheet newspaper of its need for
a Regulatory Affairs Manager, indicating therein the job description for as well as the duties and
responsibilities attendant to the aforesaid position; this prompted Alcaraz to submit her application to
Abbott on October 4, 2004;
(b) In Abbotts December 7, 2004 offer sheet, it was stated that Alcaraz was to be employed on a
probationary status;

(c) On February 12, 2005, Alcaraz signed an employment contract which specifically stated, inter alia,
that she was to be placed on probation for a period of six (6) months beginning February 15, 2005 to
August 14, 2005;
(d) On the day Alcaraz accepted Abbotts employment offer, Bernardo sent her copies of Abbotts
organizational structure and her job description through e-mail;

A different procedure is applied when terminating a probationary employee; the usual two-notice rule does not
govern.65 Section 2, Rule I, Book VI of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code states that "if the
termination is brought about by the x x x failure of an employee to meet the standards of the employer in case
of probationary employment, it shall be sufficient that a written notice is served the employee, within a
reasonable time from the effective date of termination."

(f) Alcaraz was also required to undergo a training program as part of her orientation;

As the records show, Alcaraz's dismissal was effected through a letter dated May 19, 2005 which she received
on May 23, 2005 and again on May 27, 2005. Stated therein were the reasons for her termination, i.e., that
after proper evaluation, Abbott determined that she failed to meet the reasonable standards for her
regularization considering her lack of time and people management and decision-making skills, which are
necessary in the performance of her functions as Regulatory Affairs Manager.66 Undeniably, this written notice
sufficiently meets the criteria set forth above, thereby legitimizing the cause and manner of Alcarazs dismissal
as a probationary employee under the parameters set by the Labor Code. 67

(g) Alcaraz received copies of Abbotts Code of Conduct and Performance Modules from Misa who
explained to her the procedure for evaluating the performance of probationary employees; she was
further notified that Abbott had only one evaluation system for all of its employees; and

D. Employers violation of
company policy and
procedure.

(h) Moreover, Alcaraz had previously worked for another pharmaceutical company and had admitted
to have an "extensive training and background" to acquire the necessary skills for her job. 63

Nonetheless, despite the existence of a sufficient ground to terminate Alcarazs employment and Abbotts
compliance with the Labor Code termination procedure, it is readily apparent that Abbott breached its
contractual obligation to Alcaraz when it failed to abide by its own procedure in evaluating the performance of
a probationary employee.

(e) Alcaraz was made to undergo a pre-employment orientation where Almazar informed her that she
had to implement Abbotts Code of Conduct and office policies on human resources and finance and
that she would be reporting directly to Walsh;

Considering the totality of the above-stated circumstances, it cannot, therefore, be doubted that Alcaraz was
well-aware that her regularization would depend on her ability and capacity to fulfill the requirements of her
position as Regulatory Affairs Manager and that her failure to perform such would give Abbott a valid cause to
terminate her probationary employment.
Verily, basic knowledge and common sense dictate that the adequate performance of ones duties is, by and of
itself, an inherent and implied standard for a probationary employee to be regularized; such is a regularization
standard which need not be literally spelled out or mapped into technical indicators in every case. In this
regard, it must be observed that the assessment of adequate duty performance is in the nature of a
management prerogative which when reasonably exercised as Abbott did in this case should be respected.
This is especially true of a managerial employee like Alcaraz who was tasked with the vital responsibility of
handling the personnel and important matters of her department.
In fine, the Court rules that Alcarazs status as a probationary employee and her consequent dismissal must
stand. Consequently, in holding that Alcaraz was illegally dismissed due to her status as a regular and not a
probationary employee, the Court finds that the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion.
To elucidate, records show that the NLRC based its decision on the premise that Alcarazs receipt of her job
description and Abbotts Code of Conduct and Performance Modules was not equivalent to being actually
informed of the performance standards upon which she should have been evaluated on. 64 It, however,
overlooked the legal implication of the other attendant circumstances as detailed herein which should have
warranted a contrary finding that Alcaraz was indeed a probationary and not a regular employee more
particularly the fact that she was well-aware of her duties and responsibilities and that her failure to
adequately perform the same would lead to her non-regularization and eventually, her termination.
Accordingly, by affirming the NLRCs pronouncement which is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the CA
committed a reversible error which, perforce, necessitates the reversal of its decision.
C. Probationary employment;
termination procedure.

Veritably, a company policy partakes of the nature of an implied contract between the employer and employee.
In Parts Depot, Inc. v. Beiswenger,68 it has been held that:
Employer statements of policy . . . can give rise to contractual rights in employees without evidence that the
parties mutually agreed that the policy statements would create contractual rights in the employee, and,
hence, although the statement of policy is signed by neither party, can be unilaterally amended by the
employer without notice to the employee, and contains no reference to a specific employee, his job description
or compensation, and although no reference was made to the policy statement in pre-employment interviews
and the employee does not learn of its existence until after his hiring. Toussaint, 292 N.W .2d at 892. The
principle is akin to estoppel. Once an employer establishes an express personnel policy and the employee
continues to work while the policy remains in effect, the policy is deemed an implied contract for so long as it
remains in effect. If the employer unilaterally changes the policy, the terms of the implied contract are also
thereby changed.1wphi1 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
Hence, given such nature, company personnel policies create an obligation on the part of both the employee
and the employer to abide by the same.
Records show that Abbotts PPSE procedure mandates, inter alia, that the job performance of a probationary
employee should be formally reviewed and discussed with the employee at least twice: first on the third month
and second on the fifth month from the date of employment. Abbott is also required to come up with a
Performance Improvement Plan during the third month review to bridge the gap between the employees
performance and the standards set, if any.69 In addition, a signed copy of the PPSE form should be submitted
to Abbotts HRD as the same would serve as basis for recommending the confirmation or termination of the
probationary employment.70
In this case, it is apparent that Abbott failed to follow the above-stated procedure in evaluating Alcaraz. For
one, there lies a hiatus of evidence that a signed copy of Alcarazs PPSE form was submitted to the HRD. It
was not even shown that a PPSE form was completed to formally assess her performance. Neither was the

performance evaluation discussed with her during the third and fifth months of her employment. Nor did
Abbott come up with the necessary Performance Improvement Plan to properly gauge Alcarazs performance
with the set company standards.
While it is Abbotts management prerogative to promulgate its own company rules and even subsequently
amend them, this right equally demands that when it does create its own policies and thereafter notify its
employee of the same, it accords upon itself the obligation to faithfully implement them. Indeed, a contrary
interpretation would entail a disharmonious relationship in the work place for the laborer should never be
mired by the uncertainty of flimsy rules in which the latters labor rights and duties would, to some extent,
depend.
In this light, while there lies due cause to terminate Alcarazs probationary employment for her failure to meet
the standards required for her regularization, and while it must be further pointed out that Abbott had satisfied
its statutory duty to serve a written notice of termination, the fact that it violated its own company procedure
renders the termination of Alcarazs employment procedurally infirm, warranting the payment of nominal
damages. A further exposition is apropos.
Case law has settled that an employer who terminates an employee for a valid cause but does so through
invalid procedure is liable to pay the latter nominal damages.

causes under Article 296 of the Labor Code. Therefore, the Court deems it appropriate to fix the amount of
nominal damages at the amount of P30,000.00, consistent with its rulings in both Agabon and Jaka.
E. Liability of individual
petitioners as corporate
officers.
It is hornbook principle that personal liability of corporate directors, trustees or officers attaches only when:
(a) they assent to a patently unlawful act of the corporation, or when they are guilty of bad faith or gross
negligence in directing its affairs, or when there is a conflict of interest resulting in damages to the
corporation, its stockholders or other persons; (b) they consent to the issuance of watered down stocks or
when, having knowledge of such issuance, do not forthwith file with the corporate secretary their written
objection; (c) they agree to hold themselves personally and solidarily liable with the corporation; or (d) they
are made by specific provision of law personally answerable for their corporate action. 80
In this case, Alcaraz alleges that the individual petitioners acted in bad faith with regard to the supposed crude
manner by which her probationary employment was terminated and thus, should be held liable together with
Abbott. In the same vein, she further attributes the loss of some of her remaining belongings to them. 81
Alcarazs contention fails to persuade.

In Agabon v. NLRC (Agabon),71 the Court pronounced that where the dismissal is for a just cause, the lack of
statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual. However, the employer
should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory rights. 72 Thus, in Agabon, the employer was
ordered to pay the employee nominal damages in the amount of P30,000.00.73
Proceeding from the same ratio, the Court modified Agabon in the case of Jaka Food Processing Corporation v.
Pacot (Jaka)74 where it created a distinction between procedurally defective dismissals due to a just cause, on
one hand, and those due to an authorized cause, on the other.
It was explained that if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code (now Article
296) but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction to be imposed upon him
should be tempered because the dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act imputable to the
employee; if the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Article 283 (now Article 297) but the
employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiffer because the dismissal
process was initiated by the employers exercise of his management prerogative. 75 Hence, in Jaka, where the
employee was dismissed for an authorized cause of retrenchment 76 as contradistinguished from the
employee in Agabon who was dismissed for a just cause of neglect of duty 77 the Court ordered the employer
to pay the employee nominal damages at the higher amount of P50,000.00.
Evidently, the sanctions imposed in both Agabon and Jaka proceed from the necessity to deter employers from
future violations of the statutory due process rights of employees. 78 In similar regard, the Court deems it
proper to apply the same principle to the case at bar for the reason that an employers contractual breach of
its own company procedure albeit not statutory in source has the parallel effect of violating the laborers
rights. Suffice it to state, the contract is the law between the parties and thus, breaches of the same impel
recompense to vindicate a right that has been violated. Consequently, while the Court is wont to uphold the
dismissal of Alcaraz because a valid cause exists, the payment of nominal damages on account of Abbotts
contractual breach is warranted in accordance with Article 2221 of the Civil Code. 79
Anent the proper amount of damages to be awarded, the Court observes that Alcarazs dismissal proceeded
from her failure to comply with the standards required for her regularization. As such, it is undeniable that the
dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act imputable to the employee, akin to dismissals due to just

A judicious perusal of the records show that other than her unfounded assertions on the matter, there is no
evidence to support the fact that the individual petitioners herein, in their capacity as Abbotts officers and
employees, acted in bad faith or were motivated by ill will in terminating
Alcarazs services. The fact that Alcaraz was made to resign and not allowed to enter the workplace does not
necessarily indicate bad faith on Abbotts part since a sufficient ground existed for the latter to actually
proceed with her termination. On the alleged loss of her personal belongings, records are bereft of any
showing that the same could be attributed to Abbott or any of its officers. It is a well-settled rule that bad faith
cannot be presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the onus of proving it. All told, since Alcaraz failed to
prove any malicious act on the part of Abbott or any of its officers, the Court finds the award of moral or
exemplary damages unwarranted.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 10, 2009 and Resolution dated June 9,
2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 101045 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly,
the Decision dated March 30, 2006 of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION that petitioner
Abbott Laboratories, Philippines be ORDERED to pay respondent Pearlie Ann F. Alcaraz nominal damages in the
amount of P30,000.00 on account of its breach of its own company procedure.
SO ORDERED.

Respondent is further ordered to pay the complainants their holiday pay and service incentive leave
pay for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 as well as their premium pay for holidays and rest days and
Virgilio Agabon's 13th month pay differential amounting to TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FIFTY
(P2,150.00) Pesos, or the aggregate amount of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY ONE THOUSAND SIX
HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT & 93/100 (P121,678.93) Pesos for Jenny Agabon, and ONE HUNDRED
TWENTY THREE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT & 93/100 (P123,828.93) Pesos for
Virgilio Agabon, as per attached computation of Julieta C. Nicolas, OIC, Research and Computation
Unit, NCR.
G.R. No. 158693

November 17, 2004

SO ORDERED.4

JENNY M. AGABON and VIRGILIO C. AGABON, petitioners,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), RIVIERA HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. and
VICENTE ANGELES, respondents.

On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter because it found that the petitioners had abandoned their
work, and were not entitled to backwages and separation pay. The other money claims awarded by the Labor
Arbiter were also denied for lack of evidence.5
Upon denial of their motion for reconsideration, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of
Appeals.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This petition for review seeks to reverse the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals dated January 23, 2003, in CAG.R. SP No. 63017, modifying the decision of National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC-NCR Case
No. 023442-00.
Private respondent Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. is engaged in the business of selling and installing
ornamental and construction materials. It employed petitioners Virgilio Agabon and Jenny Agabon as gypsum
board and cornice installers on January 2, 19922 until February 23, 1999 when they were dismissed for
abandonment of work.
Petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of money claims 3 and on December 28,
1999, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring the dismissals illegal and ordered private respondent to
pay the monetary claims. The dispositive portion of the decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, We find the termination of the complainants illegal. Accordingly,
respondent is hereby ordered to pay them their backwages up to November 29, 1999 in the sum of:
1. Jenny M. Agabon - P56, 231.93
2. Virgilio C. Agabon - 56, 231.93
and, in lieu of reinstatement to pay them their separation pay of one (1) month for every year of
service from date of hiring up to November 29, 1999.

The Court of Appeals in turn ruled that the dismissal of the petitioners was not illegal because they had
abandoned their employment but ordered the payment of money claims. The dispositive portion of the decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is REVERSED only insofar as it
dismissed petitioner's money claims. Private respondents are ordered to pay petitioners holiday pay
for four (4) regular holidays in 1996, 1997, and 1998, as well as their service incentive leave pay for
said years, and to pay the balance of petitioner Virgilio Agabon's 13th month pay for 1998 in the
amount of P2,150.00.
SO ORDERED.6
Hence, this petition for review on the sole issue of whether petitioners were illegally dismissed. 7
Petitioners assert that they were dismissed because the private respondent refused to give them assignments
unless they agreed to work on a "pakyaw" basis when they reported for duty on February 23, 1999. They did
not agree on this arrangement because it would mean losing benefits as Social Security System (SSS)
members. Petitioners also claim that private respondent did not comply with the twin requirements of notice
and hearing.8
Private respondent, on the other hand, maintained that petitioners were not dismissed but had abandoned
their work.9 In fact, private respondent sent two letters to the last known addresses of the petitioners advising
them to report for work. Private respondent's manager even talked to petitioner Virgilio Agabon by telephone
sometime in June 1999 to tell him about the new assignment at Pacific Plaza Towers involving 40,000 square
meters of cornice installation work. However, petitioners did not report for work because they had
subcontracted to perform installation work for another company. Petitioners also demanded for an increase in
their wage to P280.00 per day. When this was not granted, petitioners stopped reporting for work and filed the
illegal dismissal case.10
It is well-settled that findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC are accorded not only respect but
even finality if the findings are supported by substantial evidence. This is especially so when such findings
were affirmed by the Court of Appeals.11 However, if the factual findings of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter are

conflicting, as in this case, the reviewing court may delve into the records and examine for itself the
questioned findings.12
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals, after a careful review of the facts, ruled that petitioners' dismissal was for a
just cause. They had abandoned their employment and were already working for another employer.
To dismiss an employee, the law requires not only the existence of a just and valid cause but also enjoins the
employer to give the employee the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.13 Article 282 of the Labor
Code enumerates the just causes for termination by the employer: (a) serious misconduct or willful
disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or the latter's representative in connection
with the employee's work; (b) gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; (c) fraud or willful
breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or his duly authorized representative; (d)
commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate
member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and (e) other causes analogous to the foregoing.
Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. 14 It is a form
of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the employer.15 For a valid finding of
abandonment, these two factors should be present: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid
or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship, with the second as the
more determinative factor which is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the employees
has no more intention to work. The intent to discontinue the employment must be shown by clear proof that it
was deliberate and unjustified.16
In February 1999, petitioners were frequently absent having subcontracted for an installation work for another
company. Subcontracting for another company clearly showed the intention to sever the employer-employee
relationship with private respondent. This was not the first time they did this. In January 1996, they did not
report for work because they were working for another company. Private respondent at that time warned
petitioners that they would be dismissed if this happened again. Petitioners disregarded the warning and
exhibited a clear intention to sever their employer-employee relationship. The record of an employee is a
relevant consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out to him. 17
In Sandoval Shipyard v. Clave,18 we held that an employee who deliberately absented from work without leave
or permission from his employer, for the purpose of looking for a job elsewhere, is considered to have
abandoned his job. We should apply that rule with more reason here where petitioners were absent because
they were already working in another company.

I. For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Code:
(a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and
giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side;
(b) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if
the employee so desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut
the evidence presented against him; and
(c) A written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of
all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination.
In case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be served on the employee's last known address.
Dismissals based on just causes contemplate acts or omissions attributable to the employee while dismissals
based on authorized causes involve grounds under the Labor Code which allow the employer to terminate
employees. A termination for an authorized cause requires payment of separation pay. When the termination
of employment is declared illegal, reinstatement and full backwages are mandated under Article 279. If
reinstatement is no longer possible where the dismissal was unjust, separation pay may be granted.
Procedurally, (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282, the employer must give the
employee two written notices and a hearing or opportunity to be heard if requested by the employee before
terminating the employment: a notice specifying the grounds for which dismissal is sought a hearing or an
opportunity to be heard and after hearing or opportunity to be heard, a notice of the decision to dismiss; and
(2) if the dismissal is based on authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284, the employer must give the
employee and the Department of Labor and Employment written notices 30 days prior to the effectivity of his
separation.
From the foregoing rules four possible situations may be derived: (1) the dismissal is for a just cause under
Article 282 of the Labor Code, for an authorized cause under Article 283, or for health reasons under Article
284, and due process was observed; (2) the dismissal is without just or authorized cause but due process was
observed; (3) the dismissal is without just or authorized cause and there was no due process; and (4) the
dismissal is for just or authorized cause but due process was not observed.
In the first situation, the dismissal is undoubtedly valid and the employer will not suffer any liability.

The law imposes many obligations on the employer such as providing just compensation to workers,
observance of the procedural requirements of notice and hearing in the termination of employment. On the
other hand, the law also recognizes the right of the employer to expect from its workers not only good
performance, adequate work and diligence, but also good conduct 19 and loyalty. The employer may not be
compelled to continue to employ such persons whose continuance in the service will patently be inimical to his
interests.20

In the second and third situations where the dismissals are illegal, Article 279 mandates that the employee is
entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and full backwages, inclusive of
allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time the compensation was
not paid up to the time of actual reinstatement.

After establishing that the terminations were for a just and valid cause, we now determine if the procedures
for dismissal were observed.

In the fourth situation, the dismissal should be upheld. While the procedural infirmity cannot be cured, it
should not invalidate the dismissal. However, the employer should be held liable for non-compliance with the
procedural requirements of due process.

The procedure for terminating an employee is found in Book VI, Rule I, Section 2(d) of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code:
Standards of due process: requirements of notice. In all cases of termination of employment, the
following standards of due process shall be substantially observed:

The present case squarely falls under the fourth situation. The dismissal should be upheld because it was
established that the petitioners abandoned their jobs to work for another company. Private respondent,
however, did not follow the notice requirements and instead argued that sending notices to the last known
addresses would have been useless because they did not reside there anymore. Unfortunately for the private
respondent, this is not a valid excuse because the law mandates the twin notice requirements to the

employee's last known address.21 Thus, it should be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural
requirements of due process.
A review and re-examination of the relevant legal principles is appropriate and timely to clarify the various
rulings on employment termination in the light of Serrano v. National Labor Relations Commission.22
Prior to 1989, the rule was that a dismissal or termination is illegal if the employee was not given any notice.
In the 1989 case of Wenphil Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission,23 we reversed this long-standing
rule and held that the dismissed employee, although not given any notice and hearing, was not entitled to
reinstatement and backwages because the dismissal was for grave misconduct and insubordination, a just
ground for termination under Article 282. The employee had a violent temper and caused trouble during office
hours, defying superiors who tried to pacify him. We concluded that reinstating the employee and awarding
backwages "may encourage him to do even worse and will render a mockery of the rules of discipline that
employees are required to observe." 24 We further held that:
Under the circumstances, the dismissal of the private respondent for just cause should be maintained.
He has no right to return to his former employment.
However, the petitioner must nevertheless be held to account for failure to extend to private
respondent his right to an investigation before causing his dismissal. The rule is explicit as above
discussed. The dismissal of an employee must be for just or authorized cause and after due process.
Petitioner committed an infraction of the second requirement. Thus, it must be imposed a sanction for
its failure to give a formal notice and conduct an investigation as required by law before dismissing
petitioner from employment. Considering the circumstances of this case petitioner must indemnify the
private respondent the amount of P1,000.00. The measure of this award depends on the facts of each
case and the gravity of the omission committed by the employer.25
The rule thus evolved: where the employer had a valid reason to dismiss an employee but did not follow the
due process requirement, the dismissal may be upheld but the employer will be penalized to pay an indemnity
to the employee. This became known as the Wenphil or Belated Due Process Rule.
On January 27, 2000, in Serrano, the rule on the extent of the sanction was changed. We held that the
violation by the employer of the notice requirement in termination for just or authorized causes was not a
denial of due process that will nullify the termination. However, the dismissal is ineffectual and the employer
must pay full backwages from the time of termination until it is judicially declared that the dismissal was for a
just or authorized cause.
The rationale for the re-examination of the Wenphil doctrine in Serrano was the significant number of cases
involving dismissals without requisite notices. We concluded that the imposition of penalty by way of damages
for violation of the notice requirement was not serving as a deterrent. Hence, we now required payment of full
backwages from the time of dismissal until the time the Court finds the dismissal was for a just or authorized
cause.
Serrano was confronting the practice of employers to "dismiss now and pay later" by imposing full backwages.
We believe, however, that the ruling in Serrano did not consider the full meaning of Article 279 of the Labor
Code which states:
ART. 279. Security of Tenure. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the
services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is
unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and

other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their
monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time
of his actual reinstatement.
This means that the termination is illegal only if it is not for any of the justified or authorized causes provided
by law. Payment of backwages and other benefits, including reinstatement, is justified only if the employee
was unjustly dismissed.
The fact that the Serrano ruling can cause unfairness and injustice which elicited strong dissent has prompted
us to revisit the doctrine.
To be sure, the Due Process Clause in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution embodies a system of rights
based on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed
fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our entire history. Due process is that which comports with
the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just.26 It is a constitutional restraint on the legislative as well
as on the executive and judicial powers of the government provided by the Bill of Rights.
Due process under the Labor Code, like Constitutional due process, has two aspects: substantive, i.e., the valid
and authorized causes of employment termination under the Labor Code; and procedural, i.e., the manner of
dismissal. Procedural due process requirements for dismissal are found in the Implementing Rules of P.D. 442,
as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines in Book VI, Rule I, Sec. 2, as amended by
Department Order Nos. 9 and 10.27 Breaches of these due process requirements violate the Labor Code.
Therefore statutory due process should be differentiated from failure to comply with constitutional due
process.
Constitutional due process protects the individual from the government and assures him of his rights in
criminal, civil or administrative proceedings; while statutory due process found in the Labor Code and
Implementing Rules protects employees from being unjustly terminated without just cause after notice and
hearing.
In Sebuguero v. National Labor Relations Commission,28 the dismissal was for a just and valid cause but the
employee was not accorded due process. The dismissal was upheld by the Court but the employer was
sanctioned. The sanction should be in the nature of indemnification or penalty, and depends on the facts of
each case and the gravity of the omission committed by the employer.
In Nath v. National Labor Relations Commission,29 it was ruled that even if the employee was not given due
process, the failure did not operate to eradicate the just causes for dismissal. The dismissal being for just
cause,albeit without due process, did not entitle the employee to reinstatement, backwages, damages and
attorney's fees.
Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug, in his separate opinion in MGG Marine Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission,30 which opinion he reiterated in Serrano, stated:
C. Where there is just cause for dismissal but due process has not been properly observed by an
employer, it would not be right to order either the reinstatement of the dismissed employee or the
payment of backwages to him. In failing, however, to comply with the procedure prescribed by law in
terminating the services of the employee, the employer must be deemed to have opted or, in any
case, should be made liable, for the payment of separation pay. It might be pointed out that the
notice to be given and the hearing to be conducted generally constitute the two-part due process
requirement of law to be accorded to the employee by the employer. Nevertheless, peculiar
circumstances might obtain in certain situations where to undertake the above steps would be no

more than a useless formality and where, accordingly, it would not be imprudent to apply the res ipsa
loquitur rule and award, in lieu of separation pay, nominal damages to the employee. x x x. 31
After carefully analyzing the consequences of the divergent doctrines in the law on employment termination,
we believe that in cases involving dismissals for cause but without observance of the twin requirements of
notice and hearing, the better rule is to abandon the Serrano doctrine and to follow Wenphil by holding that
the dismissal was for just cause but imposing sanctions on the employer. Such sanctions, however, must be
stiffer than that imposed in Wenphil. By doing so, this Court would be able to achieve a fair result by
dispensing justice not just to employees, but to employers as well.
The unfairness of declaring illegal or ineffectual dismissals for valid or authorized causes but not complying
with statutory due process may have far-reaching consequences.
This would encourage frivolous suits, where even the most notorious violators of company policy are rewarded
by invoking due process. This also creates absurd situations where there is a just or authorized cause for
dismissal but a procedural infirmity invalidates the termination. Let us take for example a case where the
employee is caught stealing or threatens the lives of his co-employees or has become a criminal, who has fled
and cannot be found, or where serious business losses demand that operations be ceased in less than a
month. Invalidating the dismissal would not serve public interest. It could also discourage investments that can
generate employment in the local economy.
The constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be a sword to oppress employers.
The commitment of this Court to the cause of labor does not prevent us from sustaining the employer when it
is in the right, as in this case.32 Certainly, an employer should not be compelled to pay employees for work not
actually performed and in fact abandoned.
The employer should not be compelled to continue employing a person who is admittedly guilty of misfeasance
or malfeasance and whose continued employment is patently inimical to the employer. The law protecting the
rights of the laborer authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer.33
It must be stressed that in the present case, the petitioners committed a grave offense, i.e., abandonment,
which, if the requirements of due process were complied with, would undoubtedly result in a valid dismissal.
An employee who is clearly guilty of conduct violative of Article 282 should not be protected by the Social
Justice Clause of the Constitution. Social justice, as the term suggests, should be used only to correct an
injustice. As the eminent Justice Jose P. Laurel observed, social justice must be founded on the recognition of
the necessity of interdependence among diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally
and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the
fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons,
and of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest number." 34

because they are poor, or reject the rich simply because they are rich, for justice must always be
served for the poor and the rich alike, according to the mandate of the law.35
Justice in every case should only be for the deserving party. It should not be presumed that every case of
illegal dismissal would automatically be decided in favor of labor, as management has rights that should be
fully respected and enforced by this Court. As interdependent and indispensable partners in nation-building,
labor and management need each other to foster productivity and economic growth; hence, the need to weigh
and balance the rights and welfare of both the employee and employer.
Where the dismissal is for a just cause, as in the instant case, the lack of statutory due process should not
nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual. However, the employer should indemnify the employee
for the violation of his statutory rights, as ruled in Reta v. National Labor Relations Commission.36 The
indemnity to be imposed should be stiffer to discourage the abhorrent practice of "dismiss now, pay later,"
which we sought to deter in the Serrano ruling. The sanction should be in the nature of indemnification or
penalty and should depend on the facts of each case, taking into special consideration the gravity of the due
process violation of the employer.
Under the Civil Code, nominal damages is adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been
violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.37
As enunciated by this Court in Viernes v. National Labor Relations Commissions,38 an employer is liable to pay
indemnity in the form of nominal damages to an employee who has been dismissed if, in effecting such
dismissal, the employer fails to comply with the requirements of due process. The Court, after considering the
circumstances therein, fixed the indemnity at P2,590.50, which was equivalent to the employee's one month
salary. This indemnity is intended not to penalize the employer but to vindicate or recognize the employee's
right to statutory due process which was violated by the employer.39
The violation of the petitioners' right to statutory due process by the private respondent warrants the payment
of indemnity in the form of nominal damages. The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound
discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances. 40 Considering the prevailing
circumstances in the case at bar, we deem it proper to fix it at P30,000.00. We believe this form of damages
would serve to deter employers from future violations of the statutory due process rights of employees. At the
very least, it provides a vindication or recognition of this fundamental right granted to the latter under the
Labor Code and its Implementing Rules.
Private respondent claims that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that it failed to pay petitioners' holiday
pay, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay.
We are not persuaded.

This is not to say that the Court was wrong when it ruled the way it did in Wenphil, Serrano and related cases.
Social justice is not based on rigid formulas set in stone. It has to allow for changing times and circumstances.

We affirm the ruling of the appellate court on petitioners' money claims. Private respondent is liable for
petitioners' holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay without deductions.

Justice Isagani Cruz strongly asserts the need to apply a balanced approach to labor-management relations
and dispense justice with an even hand in every case:

As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even where the employee must allege
non-payment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the employer to prove payment, rather than on the
employee to prove non-payment. The reason for the rule is that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records,
remittances and other similar documents which will show that overtime, differentials, service incentive leave
and other claims of workers have been paid are not in the possession of the worker but in the custody and
absolute control of the employer.41

We have repeatedly stressed that social justice or any justice for that matter is for the deserving,
whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his hovel. It is true that, in case of
reasonable doubt, we are to tilt the balance in favor of the poor to whom the Constitution fittingly
extends its sympathy and compassion. But never is it justified to give preference to the poor simply

In the case at bar, if private respondent indeed paid petitioners' holiday pay and service incentive leave pay, it
could have easily presented documentary proofs of such monetary benefits to disprove the claims of the
petitioners. But it did not, except with respect to the 13th month pay wherein it presented cash vouchers
showing payments of the benefit in the years disputed.42 Allegations by private respondent that it does not
operate during holidays and that it allows its employees 10 days leave with pay, other than being self-serving,
do not constitute proof of payment. Consequently, it failed to discharge the onus probandi thereby making it
liable for such claims to the petitioners.
Anent the deduction of SSS loan and the value of the shoes from petitioner Virgilio Agabon's 13th month pay,
we find the same to be unauthorized. The evident intention of Presidential Decree No. 851 is to grant
an additional income in the form of the 13th month pay to employees not already receiving the same 43 so as
"to further protect the level of real wages from the ravages of world-wide inflation."44 Clearly, as additional
income, the 13th month pay is included in the definition of wage under Article 97(f) of the Labor Code, to wit:
(f) "Wage" paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or earnings, however designated,
capable of being expressed in terms of money whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece , or
commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an
employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done, or for
services rendered or to be rendered and includes the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the
Secretary of Labor, of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the
employee"
from which an employer is prohibited under Article 11345 of the same Code from making any deductions
without the employee's knowledge and consent. In the instant case, private respondent failed to show that the
deduction of the SSS loan and the value of the shoes from petitioner Virgilio Agabon's 13th month pay was
authorized by the latter. The lack of authority to deduct is further bolstered by the fact that petitioner Virgilio
Agabon included the same as one of his money claims against private respondent.
The Court of Appeals properly reinstated the monetary claims awarded by the Labor Arbiter ordering the
private respondent to pay each of the petitioners holiday pay for four regular holidays from 1996 to 1998, in
the amount of P6,520.00, service incentive leave pay for the same period in the amount of P3,255.00 and the
balance of Virgilio Agabon's thirteenth month pay for 1998 in the amount of P2,150.00.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated
January 23, 2003, in CA-G.R. SP No. 63017, finding that petitioners' Jenny and Virgilio Agabon abandoned
their work, and ordering private respondent to pay each of the petitioners holiday pay for four regular holidays
from 1996 to 1998, in the amount of P6,520.00, service incentive leave pay for the same period in the amount
of P3,255.00 and the balance of Virgilio Agabon's thirteenth month pay for 1998 in the amount of P2,150.00
is AFFIRMED with theMODIFICATION that private respondent Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. is
further ORDERED to pay each of the petitioners the amount of P30,000.00 as nominal damages for noncompliance with statutory due process.

SEPARATE OPINION
TINGA, J:
I concur in the result, the final disposition of the petition being correct. There is no denying the importance of
the Court's ruling today, which should be considered as definitive as to the effect of the failure to render the
notice and hearing required under the Labor Code when an employee is being dismissed for just causes, as
defined under the same law. The Court emphatically reaffirms the rule that dismissals for just cause are not
invalidated due to the failure of the employer to observe the proper notice and hearing requirements under the
Labor Code. At the same time, The Decision likewise establishes that the Civil Code provisions on damages
serve as the proper framework for the appropriate relief to the employee dismissed for just cause if the noticehearing requirement is not met.Serrano v. NLRC,1 insofar as it is controlling in dismissals for unauthorized
causes, is no longer the controlling precedent. Any and all previous rulings and statements of the Court
inconsistent with these determinations are now deemed inoperative.
My views on the questions raised in this petition are comprehensive, if I may so in all modesty. I offer this
opinion to discuss the reasoning behind my conclusions, pertaining as they do to questions of fundamental
importance.
Prologue
The factual backdrop of the present Petition for Review is not novel. Petitioners claim that they were illegally
dismissed by the respondents, who allege in turn that petitioners had actually abandoned their employment.
There is little difficulty in upholding the findings of the NRLC and the Court of Appeals that petitioners are
guilty of abandonment, one of the just causes for termination under the Labor Code. Yet, the records also
show that the employer was remiss in not giving the notice required by the Labor Code; hence, the resultant
controversy as to the legal effect of such failure vis--vis the warranted dismissal.
Ostensibly, the matter has been settled by our decision in Serrano2, wherein the Court ruled that the failure to
properly observe the notice requirement did not render the dismissal, whether for just or authorized causes,
null and void, for such violation was not a denial of the constitutional right to due process, and that the
measure of appropriate damages in such cases ought to be the amount of wages the employee should have
received were it not for the termination of his employment without prior notice. 3 Still, the Court has, for good
reason, opted to reexamine the so-called Serrano doctrine through the present petition
Antecedent Facts
Respondent Riviera Home Improvements, Inc (Riviera Home) is engaged in the manufacture and installation of
gypsum board and cornice. In January of 1992, the Agabons were hired in January of 1992 as cornice
installers by Riviera Home. According to their personnel file with Riviera Home, the Agabon given address was
3RDS Tailoring, E. Rodriguez Ave., Moonwalk Subdivision, P-II Paraaque City, Metro Manila. 4

No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona,
Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, and Garcia, JJ., concur.

It is not disputed that sometime around February 1999, the Agabons stopped rendering services for Riviera
Home. The Agabons allege that beginning on 23 February 1999, they stopped receiving assignments from
Riviera Home.5 When they demanded an explanation, the manager of Riviera Homes, Marivic Ventura,
informed them that they would be hired again, but on a "pakyaw" (piece-work) basis. When the Agabons
spurned this proposal, Riviera Homes refused to continue their employment under the original terms and
agreement.6 Taking affront, the Agabons filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations
Commission ("NLRC").

Riviera Homes adverts to a different version of events leading to the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal.
It alleged that in the early quarter of 1999, the Agabons stopped reporting for work with Riviera. Two separate
letters dated 10 March 1999, were sent to the Agabons at the address indicated in their personnel file. In
these notices, the Agabons were directed to report for work immediately.7 However, these notices were
returned unserved with the notation "RTS Moved." Then, in June of 1999, Virgilio Agabon informed Riviera
Homes by telephone that he and Jenny Agabon were ready to return to work for Riviera Homes, on the
condition that their wages be first adjusted. On 18 June 1999, the Agabons went to Riviera Homes, and in a
meeting with management, requested a wage increase of up to Two Hundred Eighty Pesos (P280.00) a day.
When no affirmative response was offered by Riviera Homes, the Agabons initiated the complaint before the
NLRC.8
In their Position Paper, the Agabons likewise alleged that they were required to work even on holidays and rest
days, but were never paid the legal holiday pay or the premium pay for holiday or rest day. They also asserted
that they were denied Service Incentive Leave pay, and that Virgilio Agabon was not given his thirteenth
(13th) month pay for the year 1998.9
After due deliberation, Labor Arbiter Daisy G. Cauton-Barcelona rendered a Decision dated 28 December 1999,
finding the termination of the Agabons illegal, and ordering Riviera Homes to pay backwages in the sum of
Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred Thirty One Pesos and Ninety Three Centavos (P56,231.93) each. The Labor
Arbiter likewise ordered, in lieu of reinstatement, the payment of separation pay of one (1) month pay for
every year of service from date of hiring up to 29 November 1999, as well as the payment of holiday pay,
service incentive leave pay, and premium pay for holiday and restday, plus thirteenth (13 th) month differential
to Virgilio Agabon.10
In so ruling, the Labor Arbiter declared that Riviera Homes was unable to satisfactorily refute the Agabons'
claim that they were no longer given work to do after 23 February 1999 and that their rehiring was only on
"pakyaw" basis. The Labor Arbiter also held that Riviera Homes failed to comply with the notice requirement,
noting that Riviera Homes well knew of the change of address of the Agabons, considering that the
identification cards it issued stated a different address from that on the personnel file. 11 The Labor Arbiter
asserted the principle that in all termination cases, strict compliance by the employer with the demands of
procedural and substantive due process is a condition sine qua non for the same to be declared valid.12
On appeal, the NLRC Second Division set aside the Labor Arbiter's Decision and ordered the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of merit.13 The NLRC held that the Agabons were not able to refute the assertion that for the
payroll period ending on 15 February 1999, Virgilio and Jenny Agabon worked for only two and one-half (2)
and three (3) days, respectively. It disputed the earlier finding that Riviera Homes had known of the change in
address, noting that the address indicated in the
identification cards was not the Agabons, but that of the persons who should be notified in case of emergency
concerning the employee.14 Thus, proper service of the notice was deemed to have been accomplished.
Further, the notices evinced good reason to believe that the Agabons had not been dismissed, but had instead
abandoned their jobs by refusing to report for work.
In support of its conclusion that the Agabons had abandoned their work, the NLRC also observed that the
Agabons did not seek reinstatement, but only separation pay. While the choice of relief was premised by the
Agabons on their purported strained relations with Riviera Homes, the NLRC pointed out that such claim was
amply belied by the fact that the Agabons had actually sought a conference with Riviera Homes in June of
1999. The NLRC likewise found that the failure of the Labor Arbiter to justify the award of extraneous money
claims, such as holiday and service incentive leave pay, confirmed that there was no proof to justify such
claims.

A Petition for Certiorari was promptly filed with the Court of Appeals by the Agabons, imputing grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the NLRC in dismissing their complaint for illegal dismissal. In a Decision15 dated 23
January 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding that the Agabons had abandoned their employment. It
noted that the two elements constituting abandonment had been established, to wit: the failure to report for
work or absence without valid justifiable reason, and; a clear intention to sever the employer-employee
relationship. The intent to sever the employer-employee relationship was buttressed by the Agabon's choice to
seek not reinstatement, but separation pay. The Court of Appeals likewise found that the service of the notices
were valid, as the Agabons did not notify Riviera Homes of their change of address, and thus the failure to
return to work despite notice amounted to abandonment of work.
However, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC as regards the denial of the claims for holiday pay, service
incentive leave pay, and the balance of Virgilio Agabon's thirteenth (13th) month pay. It ruled that the failure
to adduce proof in support thereof was not fatal and that the burden of proving that such benefits had already
been paid rested on Riviera Homes.16 Given that Riviera Homes failed to present proof of payment to the
Agabons of their holiday pay and service incentive leave pay for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998, the Court of
Appeals chose to believe that such benefits had not actually been received by the employees. It also ruled that
the apparent deductions made by Riviera Homes on the thirteenth (13th) month pay of Virgilio Agabon
violated Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree No. 851. 17 Accordingly,
Riviera Homes was ordered to pay the Agabons holiday for four (4) regular holidays in 1996, 1997 and 1998,
as well as their service incentive leave pay for said years, and the balance of Virgilio Agabon's thirteenth
(13th) month pay for 1998 in the amount of Two Thousand One Hundred Fifty Pesos (P2,150.00).18
In their Petition for Review, the Agabons claim that they had been illegally dismissed, reasserting their version
of events, thus: (1) that they had not been given new assignments since 23 February 1999; (2) that they were
told that they would only be re-hired on a "pakyaw" basis, and; (3) that Riviera Homes had knowingly sent the
notices to their old address despite its knowledge of their change of address as indicated in the identification
cards.19Further, the Agabons note that only one notice was sent to each of them, in violation of the rule that
the employer must furnish two written notices before termination the first to apprise the employee of the
cause for which dismissal is sought, and the second to notify the employee of the decision of dismissal. 20 The
Agabons likewise maintain that they did not seek reinstatement owing to the strained relations between them
and Riviera Homes.
The Agabons present to this Court only one issue, i.e.: whether or not they were illegally dismissed from their
employment.21 There are several dimensions though to this issue which warrant full consideration.
The Abandonment Dimension
Review of Factual Finding of Abandonment
As the Decision points out, abandonment is characterized by the failure to report for work or absence without
valid or justifiable reason, and a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. The question of
whether or not an employee has abandoned employment is essentially a factual issue. 22 The NLRC and the
Court of Appeals, both appropriate triers of fact, concluded that the Agabons had actually abandoned their
employment, thus there is little need for deep inquiry into the correctness of this factual finding. There is no
doubt that the Agabons stopped reporting for work sometime in February of 1999. And there is no evidence to
support their assertion that such absence was due to the deliberate failure of Riviera Homes to give them
work. There is also the fact, as noted by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, that the Agabons did not pray for
reinstatement, but only for separation

pay and money claims.23 This failure indicates their disinterest in maintaining the employer-employee
relationship and their unabated avowed intent to sever it. Their excuse that strained relations between them
and Riviera Homes rendered reinstatement no longer feasible was hardly given credence by the NLRC and the
Court of Appeals.24
The contrary conclusion arrived at by the Labor Arbiter as regards abandonment is of little bearing to the case.
All that the Labor Arbiter said on that point was that Riviera Homes was not able to refute the Agabons' claim
that they were terminated on 23 February 1999.25 The Labor Arbiter did not explain why or how such finding
was reachhy or how such finding was reachhe Agabons was more credible than that of Riviera Homes'. Being
bereft of reasoning, the conclusion deserves scant consideration.
Compliance with Notice Requirement
At the same time, both the NLRC and the Court of Appeals failed to consider the apparent fact that the rules
governing notice of termination were not complied with by Riviera Homes. Section 2, Book V, Rule XXIII of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code (Implementing Rules) specifically provides that for termination of
employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282, there must be: (1) written notice served on the
employee specifying the grounds for termination and giving employee reasonable opportunity to explain
his/her side; (2) a hearing or conference wherein the employee, with the assistance of counsel if so desired, is
given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut evidence presented against him/her;
and (3) written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the
circumstances, grounds have been established to justify termination.
At the same time, Section 2, Book V, Rule XXIII of the Implementing Rules does not require strict compliance
with the above procedure, but only that the same be "substantially observed."
Riviera Homes maintains that the letters it sent on 10 March 1999 to the Agabons sufficiently complied with
the notice rule. These identically worded letters noted that the Agabons had stopped working without
permission that they failed to return for work despite having been repeatedly told to report to the office and
resume their employment.26 The letters ended with an invitation to the Agabons to report back to the office
and return to work.27
The apparent purpose of these letters was to advise the Agabons that they were welcome to return back to
work, and not to notify them of the grounds of termination. Still, considering that only substantial compliance
with the notice requirement is required, I am prepared to say that the letters sufficiently conform to the first
notice required under the Implementing Rules. The purpose of the first notice is to duly inform the employee
that a particular transgression is being considered against him or her, and that an opportunity is being offered
for him or her to respond to the charges. The letters served the purpose of informing the Agabons of the
pending matters beclouding their employment, and extending them the opportunity to clear the air.
Contrary to the Agabons' claim, the letter-notice was correctly sent to the employee's last known address, in
compliance with the Implementing Rules. There is no dispute that these letters were not actually received by
the Agabons, as they had apparently moved out of the address indicated therein. Still, the letters were sent to
what Riviera Homes knew to be the Agabons' last known address, as indicated in their personnel file. The
Agabons insist that Riviera Homes had known of the change of address, offering as proof their company IDs
which purportedly print out their correct new address. Yet, as pointed out by the NLRC and the Court of
Appeals, the addresses indicated in the IDs are not the Agabons, but that of the person who is to be notified in
case on emergency involve either or both of the Agabons.
The actual violation of the notice requirement by Riviera Homes lies in its failure to serve on the Agabons the
second notice which should inform them of termination. As the Decision notes, Riviera Homes' argument that

sending the second notice was useless due to the change of address is inutile, since the Implementing Rules
plainly require that the notice of termination should be served at the employee's last known address.
The importance of sending the notice of termination should not be trivialized. The termination letter serves as
indubitable proof of loss of employment, and its receipt compels the employee to evaluate his or her next
options. Without such notice, the employee may be left uncertain of his fate; thus, its service is mandated by
the Implementing Rules. Non-compliance with the notice rule, as evident in this case, contravenes the
Implementing Rules. But does the violation serve to invalidate the Agabons' dismissal for just cause?
The So-Called Constitutional Law Dimension
Justices Puno and Panganiban opine that the Agabons should be reinstated as a consequence of the violation
of the notice requirement. I respectfully disagree, for the reasons expounded below.
Constitutional Considerations
Of Due Process and the Notice-Hearing
Requirement in Labor Termination Cases
Justice Puno proposes that the failure to render due notice and hearing prior to dismissal for just cause
constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to due process. This view, as acknowledged by Justice Puno
himself, runs contrary to the Court's pronouncement in Serrano v. NLRC28 that the absence of due notice and
hearing prior to dismissal, if for just cause, violates statutory due process.
The ponencia of Justice Vicente V. Mendoza in Serrano provides this cogent overview of the history of the
doctrine:
Indeed, to contend that the notice requirement in the Labor Code is an aspect of due process is to
overlook the fact that Art. 283 had its origin in Art. 302 of the Spanish Code of Commerce of 1882
which gave either party to the employer-employee relationship the right to terminate their
relationship by giving notice to the other one month in advance. In lieu of notice, an employee could
be laid off by paying him a mesadaequivalent to his salary for one month. This provision was repealed
by Art. 2270 of the Civil Code, which took effect on August 30, 1950. But on June 12, 1954, R.A. No.
1052, otherwise known as the Termination Pay Law, was enacted reviving the mesada. On June 21,
1957, the law was amended by R.A. No. 1787 providing for the giving of advance notice for every
year of service.29
Under Section 1 of the Termination Pay Law, an employer could dismiss an employee without just cause by
serving written notice on the employee at least one month in advance or one-half month for every year of
service of the employee, whichever was longer.30 Failure to serve such written notice entitled the employee to
compensation equivalent to his salaries or wages corresponding to the required period of notice from the date
of termination of his employment.
However, there was no similar written notice requirement under the Termination Pay Law if the dismissal of the
employee was for just cause. The Court, speaking through Justice JBL Reyes, ruled in Phil. Refining Co. v.
Garcia:31
[Republic] Act 1052, as amended by Republic Act 1787, impliedly recognizes the right of the employer
to dismiss his employees (hired without definite period) whether for just case, as therein defined or
enumerated, or without it. If there be just cause, the employer is not required to serve any
notice of discharge nor to disburse termination pay to the employee. xxx32

Clearly, the Court, prior to the enactment of the Labor Code, was ill-receptive to the notion that termination for
just cause without notice or hearing violated the constitutional right to due process. Nonetheless, the Court
recognized an award of damages as the appropriate remedy. In Galsim v. PNB,33 the Court held:
Of course, the employer's prerogative to dismiss employees hired without a definite period may be
with or without cause. But if the manner in which such right is exercised is abusive, the employer
stands to answer to the dismissed employee for damages. 34
The Termination Pay Law was among the repealed laws with the enactment of the Labor Code in 1974.
Significantly, the Labor Code, in its inception, did not require notice or hearing before an employer could
terminate an employee for just cause. As Justice Mendoza explained:
Where the termination of employment was for a just cause, no notice was required to be given to the
employee. It was only on September 4, 1981 that notice was required to be given even where the
dismissal or termination of an employee was for cause. This was made in the rules issued by the then
Minister of Labor and Employment to implement B.P. Blg. 130 which amended the Labor Code. And it
was still much later when the notice requirement was embodied in the law with the amendment of
Art. 277(b) by R.A. No. 6715 on March 2, 1989.35
It cannot be denied though that the thinking that absence of notice or hearing prior to termination constituted
a constitutional violation has gained a jurisprudential foothold with the Court. Justice Puno, in his Dissenting
Opinion, cites several cases in support of this theory, beginning with Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v.
Court of Appeals36 wherein we held that "the failure of petitioner to give the private respondent the benefit of a
hearing before he was dismissed constitutes an infringement on his constitutional right to due process of law. 37
Still, this theory has been refuted, pellucidly and effectively to my mind, by Justice Mendoza's disquisition
inSerrano, thus:
xxx There are three reasons why, on the other hand, violation by the employer of the notice
requirement cannot be considered a denial of due process resulting in the nullity of the employee's
dismissal or layoff.
The first is that the Due Process Clause of the Constitution is a limitation on governmental powers. It
does not apply to the exercise of private power, such as the termination of employment under the
Labor Code. This is plain from the text of Art. III, 1 of the Constitution, viz.: "No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. . . ." The reason is simple: Only the
State has authority to take the life, liberty, or property of the individual. The purpose of the Due
Process Clause is to ensure that the exercise of this power is consistent with what are considered
civilized methods.
The second reason is that notice and hearing are required under the Due Process Clause before the
power of organized society are brought to bear upon the individual. This is obviously not the case of
termination of employment under Art. 283. Here the employee is not faced with an aspect of the
adversary system. The purpose for requiring a 30-day written notice before an employee is laid off is
not to afford him an opportunity to be heard on any charge against him, for there is none. The
purpose rather is to give him time to prepare for the eventual loss of his job and the DOLE an
opportunity to determine whether economic causes do exist justifying the termination of his
employment.
xxx

The third reason why the notice requirement under Art. 283 can not be considered a requirement of
the Due Process Clause is that the employer cannot really be expected to be entirely an impartial
judge of his own cause. This is also the case in termination of employment for a just cause under Art.
282 (i.e., serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of the
employer, gross and habitual neglect of duties, fraud or willful breach of trust of the employer,
commission of crime against the employer or the latter's immediate family or duly authorized
representatives, or other analogous cases).38
The Court in the landmark case of People v. Marti39 clarified the proper dimensions of the Bill of Rights.
That the Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against acts of private
individuals finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. True, the liberties
guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land must always be subject to protection. But protection
against whom? Commissioner Bernas in his sponsorship speech in the Bill of Rights answers the query
which he himself posed, as follows:
"First, the general reflections. The protection of fundamental liberties in the essence of
constitutional democracy. Protection against whom? Protection against the state. The Bill of
Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the
relation between individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill
of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any
power holder." (Sponsorship Speech of Commissioner Bernas; Record of the Constitutional
Commission, Vol. 1, p. 674; July 17,1986; Italics supplied)40
I do not doubt that requiring notice and hearing prior to termination for just cause is an admirable sentiment
borne out of basic equity and fairness. Still, it is not a constitutional requirement that can impose itself on the
relations of private persons and entities. Simply put, the Bill of Rights affords protection against possible State
oppression against its citizens, but not against an unjust or repressive conduct by a private party towards
another.
Justice Puno characterizes the notion that constitutional due process limits government action alone
as "pass,"and adverts to nouvelle vague theories which assert that private conduct may be restrained by
constitutional due process. His dissent alludes to the American experience making references to the post-Civil
War/pre-World War II era when the US Supreme Court seemed overly solicitous to the rights of big business
over those of the workers.
Theories, no matter how entrancing, remain theoretical unless adopted by legislation, or more controversially,
by judicial opinion. There were a few decisions of the US Supreme Court that, ostensibly, imposed on private
persons the values of the constitutional guarantees. However, in deciding the cases, the American High Court
found it necessary to link the actors to adequate elements of the "State" since the Fourteenth Amendment
plainly begins with the words "No State shall" 41
More crucially to the American experience, it had become necessary to pass legislation in order to compel
private persons to observe constitutional values. While the equal protection clause was deemed sufficient by
the Warren Court to bar racial segregation in public facilities, it necessitated enactment of the Civil Rights Acts
of 1964 to prohibit segregation as enforced by private persons within their property. In this jurisdiction, I have
trust in the statutory regime that governs the correction of private wrongs. There are thousands of statutes,
some penal or regulatory in nature, that are the source of actionable claims against private persons. There is
even no stopping the State, through the legislative cauldron, from compelling private individuals, under pain of
legal sanction, into observing the norms ordained in the Bill of Rights.

Justice Panganiban's Separate Opinion asserts that corporate behemoths and even individuals may now be
sources of abuses and threats to human rights and liberties.42 The concern is not unfounded, but appropriate
remedies exist within our statutes, and so resort to the constitutional trump card is not necessary. Even if we
were to engage the premise, the proper juristic exercise should be to examine whether an employer has taken
the attributes of the State so that it could be compelled by the Constitution to observe the proscriptions of the
Bill of Rights. But the strained analogy simply does not square since the attributes of an employer are starkly
incongruous with those of the State. Employers plainly do not possess the awesome powers and the
tremendous resources which the State has at its command.
The differences between the State and employers are not merely literal, but extend to their very essences.
Unlike the State, the raison d'etre of employers in business is to accumulate profits. Perhaps the State and the
employer are similarly capacitated to inflict injury or discomfort on persons under their control, but the same
power is also possessed by a school principal, hospital administrator, or a religious leader, among many others.
Indeed, the scope and reach of authority of an employer pales in comparison with that of the State. There is
no basis to conclude that an employer, or even the employer class, may be deemed a de facto state and on
that premise, compelled to observe the Bill of Rights. There is simply no nexus in their functions, distaff as
they are, that renders it necessary to accord the same jurisprudential treatment.
It may be so, as alluded in the dissent of Justice Puno, that a conservative court system overly solicitous to the
concerns of business may consciously gut away at rights or privileges owing to the labor sector. This certainly
happened before in the United States in the early part of the twentieth century, when the progressive labor
legislation such as that enacted during President Roosevelt's New Deal regime most of them addressing
problems of labor were struck down by an arch-conservative Court. 43 The preferred rationale then was to
enshrine within the constitutional order business prerogatives, rendering them superior to the express
legislative intent. Curiously, following its judicial philosophy at the time the U. S. Supreme Court made due
process guarantee towards employers prevail over the police power to defeat the cause of labor.44
Of course, this Court should not be insensate to the means and methods by which the entrenched powerful
class may maneuver the socio-political system to ensure self-preservation. However, the remedy to rightward
judicial bias is not leftward judicial bias. The more proper judicial attitude is to give due respect to legislative
prerogatives, regardless of the ideological sauce they are dipped in.
While the Bill of Rights maintains a position of primacy in the constitutional hierarchy,45 it has scope and
limitations that must be respected and asserted by the Court, even though they may at times serve somewhat
bitter ends. The dissenting opinions are palpably distressed at the effect of the Decision, which will
undoubtedly provoke those reflexively sympathetic to the labor class. But haphazard legal theory cannot be
used to justify the obverse result. The adoption of the dissenting views would give rise to all sorts of absurd
constitutional claims. An excommunicated Catholic might demand his/her reinstatement into the good graces
of the Church and into communion on the ground that excommunication was violative of the constitutional
right to due process. A celebrity contracted to endorse Pepsi Cola might sue in court to void a stipulation that
prevents him/her from singing the praises of Coca Cola once in a while, on the ground that such stipulation
violates the constitutional right to free speech. An employee might sue to prevent the employer from reading
outgoing e-mail sent through the company server using the company e-mail address, on the ground that the
constitutional right to privacy of communication would be breached.
The above concerns do not in anyway serve to trivialize the interests of labor. But we must avoid overarching
declarations in order to justify an end result beneficial to labor. I dread the doctrinal acceptance of the notion
that the Bill of Rights, on its own, affords protection and sanctuary not just from the acts of State but also
from the conduct of private persons. Natural and juridical persons would hesitate to interact for fear that a
misstep could lead to their being charged in court as a constitutional violator. Private institutions that thrive on
their exclusivity, such as churches or cliquish groups, could be forced to renege on their traditional tenets,
including vows of secrecy and the like, if deemed by the Court as inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. Indeed,

that fundamental right of all private persons to be let alone would be forever diminished because of a
questionable notion that contravenes with centuries of political thought.
It is not difficult to be enraptured by novel legal ideas. Their characterization is susceptible to the same
marketing traps that hook consumers to new products. With the help of unique wrapping, a catchy label, and
testimonials from professed experts from exotic lands, a malodorous idea may gain wide acceptance, even
among those self-possessed with their own heightened senses of perception. Yet before we join the mad rush
in order to proclaim a theory as "brilliant," a rigorous test must first be employed to determine whether it
complements or contradicts our own system of laws and juristic thought. Without such analysis, we run the
risk of abnegating the doctrines we have fostered for decades and the protections they may have implanted
into our way of life.
Should the Court adopt the view that the Bill of Rights may be invoked to invalidate actions by private entities
against private individuals, the Court would open the floodgates to, and the docket would be swamped with,
litigations of the scurrilous sort. Just as patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, the broad constitutional
claim is the final resort of the desperate litigant.
Constitutional Protection of Labor
The provisions of the 1987 Constitution affirm the primacy of labor and advocate a multi-faceted state policy
that affords, among others, full protection to labor. Section 18, Article II thereof provides:
The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and
promote their welfare.
Further, Section 3, Article XIII states:
The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and
promote full employment and equal employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations,
and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be
entitled to security to tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also
participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be
provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the
preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their
mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor
to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on
investments, and to expansion and growth.
The constitutional enshrinement of the guarantee of full protection of labor is not novel to the 1987
Constitution. Section 6, Article XIV of the 1935 Constitution reads:
The State shall afford protection to labor, especially to working women, and minors, and shall regulate
the relations between the landowner and tenant, and between labor and capital in industry and in
agriculture. The State may provide for compulsory arbitration.

Similarly, among the principles and state policies declared in the 1973 Constitution, is that provided in Section
9, Article II thereof:
The State shall afford full protection to labor, promote full employment and equality in employment,
ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed, and regulate the relations between
workers and employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work. The State may provide for
compulsory arbitration.
On the other hand, prior to the 1973 Constitution, the right to security of tenure could only be found in
legislative enactments and their respective implementing rules and regulations. It was only in the 1973
Constitution that security of tenure was elevated as a constitutional right. The development of the concept of
security of tenure as a constitutionally recognized right was discussed by this Court in BPI Credit Corporation
v. NLRC,46 to wit:
The enthronement of the worker's right to security or tenure in our fundamental law was not achieved
overnight. For all its liberality towards labor, our 1935 Constitution did not elevate the right as a
constitutional right. For a long time, the worker's security of tenure had only the protective mantle of
statutes and their interpretative rules and regulations. It was as uncertain protection that sometimes
yielded to the political permutations of the times. It took labor nearly four decades of sweat and tears
to persuade our people thru their leaders, to exalt the worker's right to security of tenure as a
sacrosanct constitutional right. It was Article II, section 2 [9] of our 1973 Constitution that declared
as a policy that the State shall assure the right of worker's to security tenure. The 1987 Constitution
is even more solicitous of the welfare of labor. Section 3 of its Article XIII mandates that the State
shall afford full protection to labor and declares that all workers shall be entitled to security of tenure.
Among the enunciated State policies are the
promotion of social justice and a just and dynamic social order. In contrast, the prerogative of
management to dismiss a worker, as an aspect of property right, has never been endowed with a
constitutional status.
The unequivocal constitutional declaration that all workers shall be entitled to security of tenure
spurred our lawmakers to strengthen the protective walls around this hard earned right. The right was
protected from undue infringement both by our substantive and procedural laws. Thus, the causes for
dismissing employees were more defined and restricted; on the other hand, the procedure of
termination was also more clearly delineated. These substantive and procedural laws must be strictly
complied with before a worker can be dismissed from his employment. 47
It is quite apparent that the constitutional protection of labor was entrenched more than eight decades ago,
yet such did not prevent this Court in the past from affirming dismissals for just cause without valid notice. Nor
was there any pretense made that this constitutional maxim afforded a laborer a positive right against
dismissal for just cause on the ground of lack of valid prior notice. As demonstrated earlier, it was only after
the enactment of the Labor Code that the doctrine relied upon by the dissenting opinions became en vogue.
This point highlights my position that the violation of the notice requirement has statutory moorings, not
constitutional.
It should be also noted that the 1987 Constitution also recognizes the principle of shared responsibility
between workers and employers, and the right of enterprise to reasonable returns, expansion, and growth.
Whatever perceived imbalance there might have been under previous incarnations of the provision have been
obviated by Section 3, Article XIII.

In the case of Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS,48 we affirmed the presumption that all constitutional provisions are
self-executing. We reasoned that to declare otherwise would result in the pernicious situation wherein by mere
inaction and disregard by the legislature, constitutional mandates would be rendered ineffectual. Thus, we
held:
As against constitutions of the past, modern constitutions have been generally ed upon a different
principle and have often become in effect extensive codes of laws intended to operate directly upon
the people in a manner similar to that of statutory enactments, and the function of constitutional
conventions has evolved into one more like that of a legislative body. Hence, unless it is expressly
provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption now
is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing. If the constitutional provisions are treated
as requiring legislation instead of self-executing, the legislature would have the power to ignore and
practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental law. This can be cataclysmic. That is why the
prevailing view is, as it has always been, that
. . . in case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather than nonself-executing. . . . Unless the contrary is clearly intended, the provisions of the Constitution
should be considered self-executing, as a contrary rule would give the legislature discretion
to determine when, or whether, they shall be effective. These provisions would be
subordinated to the will of the lawmaking body, which could make them entirely meaningless
by simply refusing to pass the needed implementing statute. 49
In further discussing self-executing provisions, this Court stated that:
In self-executing constitutional provisions, the legislature may still enact legislation to facilitate the
exercise of powers directly granted by the constitution, further the operation of such a provision,
prescribe a practice to be used for its enforcement, provide a convenient remedy for the protection of
the rights secured or the determination thereof, or place reasonable safeguards around the exercise
of the right. The mere fact that legislation may supplement and add to or prescribe a penalty for the
violation of a self-executing constitutional provision does not render such a provision ineffective in the
absence of such legislation. The omission from a constitution of any express provision for a remedy
for enforcing a right or liability is not necessarily an indication that it was not intended to be selfexecuting. The rule is that a self-executing provision of the constitution does not necessarily exhaust
legislative power on the subject, but any legislation must be in harmony with the constitution, further
the exercise of constitutional right and make it more available. Subsequent legislation however does
not necessarily mean that the subject constitutional provision is not, by itself, fully enforceable. 50
Thus, the constitutional mandates of protection to labor and security of tenure may be deemed as selfexecuting in the sense that these are automatically acknowledged and observed without need for any enabling
legislation. However, to declare that the constitutional provisions are enough to guarantee the full exercise of
the rights embodied therein, and the realization of ideals therein expressed, would be impractical, if not
unrealistic. The espousal of such view presents the dangerous tendency of being overbroad and exaggerated.
The guarantees of "full protection to labor" and "security of tenure", when examined in isolation, are facially
unqualified, and the broadest interpretation possible suggests a blanket shield in favor of labor against any
form of removal regardless of circumstance. This interpretation implies an unimpeachable right to continued
employment-a utopian notion, doubtless-but still hardly within the contemplation of the framers. Subsequent
legislation is still needed to define the parameters of these guaranteed rights to ensure the protection and
promotion, not only the rights of the labor sector, but of the employers' as well. Without specific and pertinent
legislation, judicial bodies will be at a loss, formulating their own conclusion to approximate at least the aims
of the Constitution.

Ultimately, therefore, Section 3 of Article XIII cannot, on its own, be a source of a positive enforceable right to
stave off the dismissal of an employee for just cause owing to the failure to serve proper notice or hearing. As
manifested by several framers of the 1987 Constitution, the provisions on social justice require legislative
enactments for their enforceability. This is reflected in the record of debates on the social justice provisions of
the Constitution:
MS. [FELICITAS S.] AQUINO: We appreciate the concern of the Commissioner. But this Committee [on
Social Justice] has actually become the forum already of a lot of specific grievances and
specific demands, such that understandably, we may have been, at one time or another,
dangerously treading into the functions of legislation. Our only plea to the Commission is to
focus our perspective on the matter of social justice and its rightful place in the Constitution. What
we envision here is a mandate specific enough that would give impetus for statutory
implementation. We would caution ourselves in terms of the judicious exercise of selfcensorship against treading into the functions of legislation. (emphasis supplied)51
xxx
[FLORENZ D.] REGALADO: I notice that the 1935 Constitution had only one section on social justice;
the same is true with the 1973 Constitution. But they seem to have stood us in good stead; and I am
a little surprised why, despite that attempt at self-censorship, there are certain provisions
here which are properly for legislation.52
xxx
BISHOP [TEODORO S.] BACANI: [I] think the distinction that was given during the presentation of the
provisions on the Bill of Rights by Commissioner Bernas is very apropos here. He spoke of selfexecuting rights which belong properly to the Bill of Rights, and then he spoke of a new
body of rights which are more of claims and that these have come about largely through
the works of social philosophers and then the teaching of the Popes. They focus on the
common good and hence, it is not as easy to pinpoint precisely these rights nor the situs of
the rights. And yet, they exist in relation to the common good.53
xxx
MS. [MINDA LUZ M.] QUESADA: I think the nitty-gritty of this kind of collaboration will be left
to legislation but the important thing now is the conservation, utilization or maximization of the very
limited resources. xxx
[RICARDO J.] ROMULO: The other problem is that, by and large, government services are inefficient.
So, this is a problem all by itself. On Section 19, where the report says that people's organizations as
a principal means of empowering the people to pursue and protect through peaceful means, I do
not suppose that the Committee would like to either preempt or exclude the legislature,
because the concept of a representative and democratic system really is that the
legislature is normally the principal means.
[EDMUNDO G.] GARCIA: That is correct. In fact, people cannot even dream of influencing the
composition or the membership of the legislature, if they do not get organized. It is, in fact,
a recognition of the principle that unless a citizenry is organized and mobilized to pursue its ends
peacefully, then it cannot really participate effectively.54

There is no pretense on the part of the framers that the provisions on Social Justice, particularly Section 3 of
Article XIII, are self-executory. Still, considering the rule that provisions should be deemed self-executing if
enforceable without further legislative action, an examination of Section 3 of Article XIII is warranted to
determine whether it is complete in itself as a definitive law, or if it needs future legislation for completion and
enforcement.55 Particularly, we should inquire whether or not the provision voids the dismissal of a laborer for
just cause if no valid notice or hearing is attendant.
Constitutional Commissioner Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas makes a significant comment on Section 3, Article XIII of
the 1987 Constitution:
The [cluster] of rights guaranteed in the second paragraph are the right "to security of tenure,
humane conditions of work, and a living wage." Again, although these have been set apart by a
period (.) from the next sentence and are therefore not modified by the final phrase "as may be
provided by law," it is not the intention to place these beyond the reach of valid laws. xxx
(emphasis supplied)56
At present, the Labor Code is the primary mechanism to carry out the Constitution's directives. This is clear
from Article 357 under Chapter 1 thereof which essentially restates the policy on the protection of labor as
worded in the 1973 Constitution, which was in force at the time of enactment of the Labor Code. It crystallizes
the fundamental law's policies on labor, defines the parameters of the rights granted to labor such as the right
to security of tenure, and prescribes the standards for the enforcement of such rights in concrete terms. While
not infallible, the measures provided therein tend to ensure the achievement of the constitutional aims.
The necessity for laws concretizing the constitutional principles on the protection of labor is evident in the
reliance placed upon such laws by the Court in resolving the issue of the validity of a worker's dismissal. In
cases where that was the issue confronting the Court, it consistently recognized the constitutional right to
security of tenure and employed the standards laid down by prevailing laws in determining whether such right
was violated.58 The Court's reference to laws other than the Constitution in resolving the issue of dismissal is
an implicit acknowledgment that the right to security of tenure, while recognized in the Constitution, cannot be
implemented uniformly absent a law prescribing concrete standards for its enforcement.
As discussed earlier, the validity of an employee's dismissal in previous cases was examined by the Court in
accordance with the standards laid down by Congress in the Termination Pay Law, and subsequently, the Labor
Code and the amendments thereto. At present, the validity of an employee's dismissal is weighed against the
standards laid down in Article 279, as well as Article 282 in relation to Article 277(b) of the Labor Code, for a
dismissal for just cause, and Article 283 for a dismissal for an authorized cause.
The Effect of Statutory Violation
Of Notice and Hearing
There is no doubt that the dismissal of an employee even for just cause, without prior notice or hearing,
violates the Labor Code. However, does such violation necessarily void the dismissal?
Before I proceed with my discussion on dismissals for just causes, a brief comment regarding dismissals for
authorized cause under Article 283 of the Labor Code. While the justiciable question in Serrano pertained to a
dismissal for unauthorized cause, the ruling therein was crafted as definitive to dismissals for just cause.
Happily, the Decision today does not adopt the same unwise tack. It should be recognized that dismissals for
just cause and dismissals for authorized cause are governed by different provisions, entail divergent requisites,
and animated by distinct rationales. The language of Article 283 expressly effects the termination for
authorized cause to the service of written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor at least one (1)

month before the intended date of termination. This constitutes an eminent difference than dismissals for just
cause, wherein the causal relation between the notice and the dismissal is not expressly stipulated. The
circumstances distinguishing just and authorized causes are too markedly different to be subjected to the
same rules and reasoning in interpretation.
Since the present petition is limited to a question arising from a dismissal for just cause, there is no reason for
making any pronouncement regarding authorized causes. Such declaration would be merely obiter, since they
are neither the law of the case nor dispositive of the present petition. When the question becomes justiciable
before this Court, we will be confronted with an appropriate factual milieu on which we can render a more
judicious disposition of this admittedly important question.
B. Dismissal for Just Cause
There is no express provision in the Labor Code that voids a dismissal for just cause on the ground that there
was no notice or hearing. Under Section 279, the employer is precluded from dismissing an employee except
for a just cause as provided in Section 282, or an authorized cause under Sections 283 and 284. Based on
reading Section 279 alone, the existence of just cause by itself is sufficient to validate the termination.
Just cause is defined by Article 282, which unlike Article 283, does not condition the termination on the service
of written notices. Still, the dissenting opinions propound that even if there is just cause, a termination may be
invalidated due to the absence of notice or hearing. This view is anchored mainly on constitutional moorings,
the basis of which I had argued against earlier. For determination now is whether there is statutory basis under
the Labor Code to void a dismissal for just cause due to the absence of notice or hearing.
As pointed out by Justice Mendoza in Serrano, it was only in 1989 that the Labor Code was amended to
enshrine into statute the twin requirements of notice and hearing. 59 Such requirements are found in Article 277
of the Labor Code, under the heading "Miscellaneous Provisions." Prior to the amendment, the notice-hearing
requirement was found under the implementing rules issued by the then Minister of Labor in 1981. The
present-day implementing rules likewise mandate that the standards of due process, including the requirement
of written notice and hearing, "be substantially observed." 60
Indubitably, the failure to substantially comply with the standards of due process, including the notice and
hearing requirement, may give rise to an actionable claim against the employer. Under Article 288, penalties
may arise from violations of any provision of the Labor Code. The Secretary of Labor likewise enjoys broad
powers to inquire into existing relations between employers and employees. Systematic violations by
management of the statutory right to due process would fall under the broad grant of power to the Secretary
of Labor to investigate under Article 273.
However, the remedy of reinstatement despite termination for just cause is simply not authorized by the Labor
Code. Neither the Labor Code nor its implementing rules states that a termination for just cause is voided
because the requirement of notice and hearing was not observed. This is not simply an inadvertent semantic
failure, but a conscious effort to protect the prerogatives of the employer to dismiss an employee for just
cause. Notably, despite the several pronouncements by this Court in the past equating the notice-hearing
requirement in labor cases to a constitutional maxim, neither the legislature nor the executive has adopted the
same tack, even gutting the protection to provide that substantial compliance with due process suffices.
The Labor Code significantly eroded management prerogatives in the hiring and firing of employees. Whereas
employees could be dismissed even without just cause under the Termination Pay Law 61, the Labor Code
affords workers broad security of tenure. Still, the law recognizes the right of the employer to terminate for
just cause. The just causes enumerated under the Labor Code serious misconduct or willful disobedience,
gross and habitual neglect, fraud or willful breach of trust, commission of a crime by the employee against the

employer, and other analogous causes are characterized by the harmful behavior of an employee against the
business or the person of the employer.
These just causes for termination are not negated by the absence of notice or hearing. An employee who tries
to kill the employer cannot be magically absolved of trespasses just because the employer forgot to serve due
notice. Or a less extreme example, the gross and habitual neglect of an employee will not be improved upon
just because the employer failed to conduct a hearing prior to termination.
In fact, the practical purpose of requiring notice and hearing is to afford the employee the opportunity to
dispute the contention that there was just cause in the dismissal. Yet it must be understood if a dismissed
employee is deprived of the right to notice and hearing, and thus denied the opportunity to present
countervailing evidence that disputes the finding of just cause, reinstatement will be valid not
because the notice and hearing requirement was not observed, but because there was no just
cause in the dismissal. The opportunity to dispute the finding of the just cause is readily available before the
Labor Arbiter, and the subsequent levels of appellate review. Again, as held in Serrano:
Even in cases of dismissal under Art. 282, the purpose for the requirement of notice and hearing is not to
comply with the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The time for notice and hearing is at the trial stage.
Then that is the time we speak of notice and hearing as the essence of procedural due process. Thus,
compliance by the employer with the notice requirement before he dismisses an employee does not foreclose
the right of the latter to question the legality of his dismissal. As Art. 277(b) provides, "Any decision taken by
the employer shall be without prejudice to the right of the worker to contest the validity or legality of his
dismissal by filing a complaint with the regional branch of the National Labor Relations Commission. 62
The Labor Code presents no textually demonstrable commitment to invalidate a dismissal for just cause due to
the absence of notice or hearing. This is not surprising, as such remedy will not restore the employer or
employee into equity. Absent a showing of integral causation, the mutual infliction of wrongs does not negate
either injury, but instead enforces two independent rights of relief.
The Damages' Dimensions
Award for Damages Must Have Statutory Basis
The Court has grappled with the problem of what should be the proper remedial relief of an employee
dismissed with just cause, but not afforded either notice or hearing. In a long line of cases, beginning
with Wenphil Corp. v. NLRC63 and up until Serrano in 2000, the Court had deemed an indemnification award as
sufficient to answer for the violation by the employer against the employee. However, the doctrine was
modified in Serrano.
I disagree with Serrano insofar as it held that employees terminated for just cause are to be paid backwages
from the time employment was terminated "until it is determined that the termination is for just cause because
the failure to hear him before he is dismissed renders the termination of his employment without legal
effect."64 Article 279 of the Labor Code clearly authorizes the payment of backwages only if an employee is
unjustly dismissed. A dismissal for just cause is obviously antithetical to an unjust dismissal. An award for
backwages is not clearly warranted by the law.
The Impropriety of Award for Separation Pay
The formula of one month's pay for every year served does have statutory basis. It is found though in the
Labor Code though, not the Civil Code. Even then, such computation is made for separation pay under the
Labor Code. But separation pay is not an appropriate as a remedy in this case, or in any case wherein an

employee is terminated for just cause. As Justice Vitug noted in his separate opinion in Serrano, an employee
whose employment is terminated for a just cause is not entitled to the payment of separation
benefits.65 Separation pay is traditionally a monetary award paid as an alternative to reinstatement which can
no longer be effected in view of the long passage of time or because of the realities of the situation. 66 However,
under Section 7, Rule 1, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, "[t]he separation from
work of an employee for a just cause does not entitle him to the termination pay provided in the
Code."67 Neither does the Labor Code itself provide instances wherein separation pay is warranted for
dismissals with just cause. Separation pay is warranted only for dismissals for authorized causes, as
enumerated in Article 283 and 284 of the Labor Code.
The Impropriety of Equity Awards
Admittedly, the Court has in the past authorized the award of separation pay for duly terminated employees as
a measure of social justice, provided that the employee is not guilty of serious misconduct reflecting on moral
character.68 This doctrine is inapplicable in this case, as the Agabons are guilty of abandonment, which is the
deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. Abandonment is tantamount to
serious misconduct, as it constitutes a willful breach of the employer-employee relationship without cause.
The award of separation pay as a measure of social justice has no statutory basis, but clearly emanates from
the Court's so-called "equity jurisdiction." The Court's equity jurisdiction as a basis for award, no matter what
form it may take, is likewise unwarranted in this case. Easy resort to equity should be avoided, as it should
yield to positive rules which pre-empt and prevail over such persuasions. 69 Abstract as the concept is, it does
not admit to definite and objective standards.
I consider the pronouncement regarding the proper monetary awards in such cases as Wenphil Corp. v.
NLRC,70Reta,71 and to a degree, even Serrano as premised in part on equity. This decision is premised in part
due to the absence of cited statutory basis for these awards. In these cases, the Court deemed an indemnity
award proper without exactly saying where in statute could such award be derived at. Perhaps, equity or social
justice can be invoked as basis for the award. However, this sort of arbitrariness, indeterminacy and judicial
usurpation of legislative prerogatives is precisely the source of my discontent. Social justice should be the
aspiration of all that we do, yet I think it the more mature attitude to consider that it ebbs and flows within our
statutes, rather than view it as an independent source of funding.

However, it is apparent that Article 288 is a penal provision; hence, the prescription for penalties such as fine
and imprisonment. The Article is also explicit that the imposition of fine or imprisonment is at the "discretion of
the court." Thus, the proceedings under the provision is penal in character. The criminal case has to be
instituted before the proper courts, and the Labor Code violation subject thereof duly proven in an adversarial
proceeding. Hence, Article 288 cannot apply in this case and serve as basis to impose a penalty on Riviera
Homes.
I also maintain that under Article 288 the penalty should be paid to the State, and not to the person or
persons who may have suffered injury as a result of the violation. A penalty is a sum of money which the law
requires to be paid by way of punishment for doing some act which is prohibited or for not doing some act
which is required to be done.72 A penalty should be distinguished from damages which is the pecuniary
compensation or indemnity to a person who has suffered loss, detriment, or injury, whether to his person,
property, or rights, on account of the unlawful act or omission or negligence of another. Article 288 clearly
serves as a punitive fine, rather than a compensatory measure, since the provision penalizes an act that
violates the Labor Code even if such act does not cause actual injury to any private person.
Independent of the employee's interests protected by the Labor Code is the interest of the State in seeing to it
that its regulatory laws are complied with. Article 288 is intended to satiate the latter interest. Nothing in the
language of Article 288 indicates an intention to compensate or remunerate a private person for injury he may
have sustained.
It should be noted though that in Serrano, the Court observed that since the promulgation of Wenphil Corp. v.
NLRC73 in 1989, "fines imposed for violations of the notice requirement have varied from P1,000.00
to P2,000.00 to P5,000.00 to P10,000.00."74 Interestingly, this range is the same range of the penalties
imposed by Article 288. These "fines" adverted to in Serrano were paid to the dismissed employee. The use of
the term "fines," as well as the terminology employed a few other cases, 75 may have left an erroneous
impression that the award implemented beginning with Wenphil was based on Article 288 of the Labor Code.
Yet, an examination of Wenphilreveals that what the Court actually awarded to the employee was an
"indemnity", dependent on the facts of each case and the gravity of the omission committed by the employer.
There is no mention in Wenphil of Article 288 of the Labor Code, or indeed, of any statutory basis for the
award.
The Proper Basis: Employer's Liability under the Civil Code

Article 288 of the Labor Code as a Source of Liability

Another putative source of liability for failure to render the notice requirement is Article 288 of the Labor Code,
which states:
Article 288 states:
Penalties. Except as otherwise provided in this Code, or unless the acts complained of hinges on a
question of interpretation or implementation of ambiguous provisions of an existing collective
bargaining agreement, any violation of the provisions of this Code declared to be unlawful or penal in
nature shall be punished with a fine of not less than One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) nor more than
Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), or imprisonment of not less than three months nor more than
three years, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
It is apparent from the provision that the penalty arises due to contraventions of the provisions of the Labor
Code. It is also clear that the provision comes into play regardless of who the violator may be. Either the
employer or the employee may be penalized, or perhaps even officials tasked with implementing the Labor
Code.

As earlier stated, Wenphil allowed the payment of indemnity to the employee dismissed for just cause is
dependent on the facts of each case and the gravity of the omission committed by the employer. However, I
considered Wenphil flawed insofar as it is silent as to the statutory basis for the indemnity award. This failure,
to my mind, renders it unwise for to reinstate the Wenphil rule, and foster the impression that it is the judicial
business to invent awards for damages without clear statutory basis.
The proper legal basis for holding the employer liable for monetary damages to the employee
dismissed for just cause is the Civil Code. The award of damages should be measured against the
loss or injury suffered by the employee by reason of the employer's violation or, in case of nominal
damages, the right vindicated by the award. This is the proper paradigm authorized by our law, and
designed to obtain the fairest possible relief.
Under Section 217(4) of the Labor Code, the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations. It is thus the duty of
Labor Arbiters to adjudicate claims for damages, and they should disabuse themselves of any inhibitions if it
does appear that an award for damages is warranted. As triers of facts in a specialized field, they should
attune themselves to the particular conditions or problems attendant to employer-employee relationships, and

thus be in the best possible position as to the nature and amount of damages that may be warranted in this
case.

limited in pecuniary value.85 This fact should be impressed upon the prospective claimant, especially one who
is contemplating seeking actual/compensatory damages.

The damages referred under Section 217(4) of the Labor Code are those available under the Civil Code. It is
but proper that the Civil Code serve as the basis for the indemnity, it being the law that regulates the private
relations of the members of civil society, determining their respective rights and obligations with reference to
persons, things, and civil acts.76 No matter how impressed with the public interest the relationship between a
private employer and employee is, it still is ultimately a relationship between private individuals. Notably, even
though the Labor Code could very well have provided set rules for damages arising from the employeremployee relationship, referral was instead made to the concept of damages as enumerated and defined under
the Civil Code.

Second. Actual or compensatory damages are not available as a matter of right to an employee dismissed for
just cause but denied statutory due process. They must be based on clear factual and legal bases, 86 and
correspond to such pecuniary loss suffered by the employee as duly proven. 87 Evidently, there is less degree of
discretion to award actual or compensatory damages.

Given the long controversy that has dogged this present issue regarding dismissals for just cause, it is wise to
lay down standards that would guide the proper award of damages under the Civil Code in cases wherein the
employer failed to comply with statutory due process in dismissals for just cause.
First. I believe that it can be maintained as a general rule, that failure to comply with the statutory
requirement of notice automatically gives rise to nominal damages, at the very least, even if the dismissal was
sustained for just cause.
Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of a plaintiff which has been violated or invaded by
another may be vindicated or recognized without having to indemnify the plaintiff for any loss suffered by
him.77 Nominal damages may likewise be awarded in every obligation arising from law, contracts, quasicontracts, acts or omissions punished by law, and quasi-delicts, or where any property right has been invaded.
Clearly, the bare act of failing to observe the notice requirement gives rise to nominal damages assessable
against the employer and due the employee. The Labor Code indubitably entitles the employee to notice even
if dismissal is for just cause, even if there is no apparent intent to void such dismissals deficiently
implemented. It has also been held that one's employment, profession, trade, or calling is a "property right"
and the wrongful interference therewith gives rise to an actionable wrong. 78
In Better Buildings, Inc. v. NLRC,79 the Court ruled that the while the termination therein was for just and valid
cause, the manner of termination was done in complete disregard of the necessary procedural
safeguards.80 The Court found nominal damages as the proper form of award, as it was purposed to vindicate
the right to procedural due process violated by the employer.81 A similar holding was maintained in Iran v.
NLRC82 and Malaya Shipping v. NLRC.83 The doctrine has express statutory basis, duly recognizes the existence
of the right to notice, and vindicates the violation of such right. It is sound, logical, and should be adopted as a
general rule.
The assessment of nominal damages is left to the discretion of the court, 84 or in labor cases, of the Labor
Arbiter and the successive appellate levels. The authority to nominate standards governing the award of
nominal damages has clearly been delegated to the judicial branch, and it will serve good purpose for this
Court to provide such guidelines. Considering that the affected right is a property right, there is justification in
basing the amount of nominal damages on the particular characteristics attaching to the claimant's
employment. Factors such as length of service, positions held, and received salary may be considered to obtain
the proper measure of nominal damages. After all, the degree by which a property right should be vindicated
is affected by the estimable value of such right.
At the same time, it should be recognized that nominal damages are not meant to be compensatory, and
should not be computed through a formula based on actual losses. Consequently, nominal damages usually

I recognize some inherent difficulties in establishing actual damages in cases for terminations validated for just
cause. The dismissed employee retains no right to continued employment from the moment just cause for
termination exists, and such time most likely would have arrived even before the employer is liable to send the
first notice. As a result, an award of backwages disguised as actual damages would almost never be justified if
the employee was dismissed for just cause. The possible exception would be if it can be proven the ground for
just cause came into being only after the dismissed employee had stopped receiving wages from the employer.
Yet it is not impossible to establish a case for actual damages if dismissal was for just cause. Particularly
actionable, for example, is if the notices are not served on the employee, thus hampering his/her opportunities
to obtain new employment. For as long as it can be demonstrated that the failure of the employer to observe
procedural due process mandated by the Labor Code is the proximate cause of pecuniary loss or injury to the
dismissed employee, then actual or compensatory damages may be awarded.
Third. If there is a finding of pecuniary loss arising from the employer violation, but the amount cannot be
proved with certainty, then temperate or moderate damages are available under Article 2224 of the Civil Code.
Again, sufficient discretion is afforded to the adjudicator as regards the proper award, and the award must be
reasonable under the circumstances.88 Temperate or nominal damages may yet prove to be a plausible
remedy, especially when common sense dictates that pecuniary loss was suffered, but incapable of precise
definition.
Fourth. Moral and exemplary damages may also be awarded in the appropriate circumstances. As pointed out
by the Decision, moral damages are recoverable where the dismissal of the employee was attended by bad
faith, fraud, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy, or the employer
committed an act oppressive to labor.89 Exemplary damages may avail if the dismissal was effected in a
wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner.
Appropriate Award of Damages to the Agabons
The records indicate no proof exists to justify the award of actual or compensatory damages, as it has not
been established that the failure to serve the second notice on the Agabons was the proximate cause to any
loss or injury. In fact, there is not even any showing that such violation caused any sort of injury or discomfort
to the Agabons. Nor do they assert such causal relation. Thus, the only appropriate award of damages is
nominal damages. Considering the circumstances, I agree that an award of Fifteen Thousand Pesos
(P15,000.00) each for the Agabons is sufficient.
All premises considered, I VOTE to:
(1) DENY the PETITION for lack of merit, and AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 23
January 2003, with the MODIFICATION that in addition, Riviera Homes be
ORDERED to pay the petitioners the sum of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) each, as nominal
damages.

(2) HOLD that henceforth, dismissals for just cause may not be invalidated due to the failure to
observe the due process requirements under the Labor Code, and that the only indemnity award
available to the employee dismissed for just cause are damages under the Civil Code as duly proven.
Any and all previous rulings and statements of the Court inconsistent with this holding are now
deemed INOPERATIVE.

The material facts may be briefly stated, as follows:

Respondents Darwin Pacot, Robert Parohinog, David Bisnar, Marlon Domingo, Rhoel Lescano and Jonathan
Cagabcab were earlier hired by petitioner JAKA Foods Processing Corporation (JAKA, for short) until the latter
terminated their employment on August 29, 1997 because the corporation was "in dire financial straits". It is
not disputed, however, that the termination was effected without JAKA complying with the requirement under
Article 283 of the Labor Code regarding the service of a written notice upon the employees and the
Department of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date of termination.
In time, respondents separately filed with the regional Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) complaints for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages and nonpayment of service
incentive leave and 13th month pay against JAKA and its HRD Manager, Rosana Castelo.
After due proceedings, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision 3 declaring the termination illegal and ordering
JAKA and its HRD Manager to reinstate respondents with full backwages, and separation pay if reinstatement is
not possible. More specifically the decision dispositively reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring as illegal the termination of complainants and ordering
respondents to reinstate them to their positions with full backwages which as of July 30, 1998 have already
amounted to P339,768.00. Respondents are also ordered to pay complainants the amount of P2,775.00
representing the unpaid service incentive leave pay of Parohinog, Lescano and Cagabcab an the amount of
P19,239.96 as payment for 1997 13th month pay as alluded in the above computation.
If complainants could not be reinstated, respondents are ordered to pay them separation pay equivalent to one
month salary for very (sic) year of service.

G.R. No. 151378. March 28, 2005

JAKA FOOD PROCESSING CORPORATION, Petitioners,
vs.
DARWIN PACOT, ROBERT PAROHINOG, DAVID BISNAR, MARLON DOMINGO, RHOEL LESCANO and
JONATHAN CAGABCAB, Respondents.
DECISION
GARCIA, J.:
Assailed and sought to be set aside in this appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorari under rule 45 of
the Rules of Court are the following issuances of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 59847, to wit:
1. Decision dated 16 November 2001,1 reversing and setting aside an earlier decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC); and
2. Resolution dated 8 January 2002,2 denying petitioners motion for reconsideration.

SO ORDERED.
Therefrom, JAKA went on appeal to the NLRC, which, in a decision dated August 30, 1999, 4 affirmed in
toto that of the Labor Arbiter.
JAKA filed a motion for reconsideration. Acting thereon, the NLRC came out with another decision dated
January 28, 2000,5 this time modifying its earlier decision, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED and the
challenged decision of this Commission [dated] 30 August 1999 and the decision of the Labor Arbiter xxx are
hereby modified by reversing an setting aside the awards of backwages, service incentive leave pay. Each of
the complainants-appellees shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to one month. In addition,
respondents-appellants is (sic) ordered to pay each of the complainants-appellees the sum of P2,000.00 as
indemnification for its failure to observe due process in effecting the retrenchment.
SO ORDERED.

Their motion for reconsideration having been denied by the NLRC in its resolution of April 28,
2000,6 respondents went to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, thereat docketed as CA-G.R. SP
No. 59847.
As stated at the outset hereof, the Court of Appeals, in a decision dated November 16, 2000, applying the
doctrine laid down by this Court in Serrano vs. NLRC,7 reversed and set aside the NLRCs decision of January
28, 2000, thus:
WHEREFORE, the decision dated January 28, 2000 of the National Labor Relations Commission
is REVERSEDand SET ASIDE and another one entered ordering respondent JAKA Foods Processing
Corporation to pay petitioners separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary, the proportionate 13th
month pay and, in addition, full backwages from the time their employment was terminated on August 29,
1997 up to the time the Decision herein becomes final.
SO ORDERED.
This time, JAKA moved for a reconsideration but its motion was denied by the appellate court in its resolution
of January 8, 2002.
Hence, JAKAs present recourse, submitting, for our consideration, the following issues:
"I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY AWARDED FULL BACKWAGES TO RESPONDENTS.
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSAILED DECISION CORRECTLY AWARDED SEPARATION PAY TO RESPONDENTS".
As we see it, there is only one question that requires resolution, i.e. what are the legal implications of a
situation where an employee is dismissed for cause but such dismissal was effected without the employers
compliance with the notice requirement under the Labor Code.
This, certainly, is not a case of first impression. In the very recent case of Agabon vs. NLRC,8 we had the
opportunity to resolve a similar question. Therein, we found that the employees committed a grave
offense, i.e.,abandonment, which is a form of a neglect of duty which, in turn, is one of the just causes
enumerated under Article 282 of the Labor Code. In said case, we upheld the validity of the dismissal despite
non-compliance with the notice requirement of the Labor Code. However, we required the employer to pay the
dismissed employees the amount of P30,000.00, representing nominal damages for non-compliance with
statutory due process, thus:
"Where the dismissal is for a just cause, as in the instant case, the lack of statutory due process should not
nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual. However, the employer should indemnify the employee
for the violation of his statutory rights, as ruled in Reta vs. National Labor Relations Commission. The
indemnity to be imposed should be stiffer to discourage the abhorrent practice of dismiss now, pay later,
which we sought to deter in the Serrano ruling. The sanction should be in the nature of indemnification or
penalty and should depend on the facts of each case, taking into special consideration the gravity of the due
process violation of the employer.

xxx xxx xxx

The violation of petitioners right to statutory due process by the private respondent warrants the payment of
indemnity in the form of nominal damages. The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion
of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances. Considering the prevailing circumstances in
the case at bar, we deem it proper to fix it at P30,000.00. We believe this form of damages would serve
to deter employers from future violations of the statutory due process rights of employees. At the very least, it
provides a vindication or recognition of this fundamental right granted to the latter under the Labor Code and
its Implementing Rules," (Emphasis supplied).
The difference between Agabon and the instant case is that in the former, the dismissal was based on a just
cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code while in the present case, respondents were dismissed due to
retrenchment, which is one of the authorized causes under Article 283 of the same Code.
At this point, we note that there are divergent implications of a dismissal for just cause under Article 282, on
one hand, and a dismissal for authorized cause under Article 283, on the other.
A dismissal for just cause under Article 282 implies that the employee concerned has committed, or is guilty
of, some violation against the employer, i.e. the employee has committed some serious misconduct, is guilty of
some fraud against the employer, or, as in Agabon, he has neglected his duties. Thus, it can be said that the
employee himself initiated the dismissal process.
On another breath, a dismissal for an authorized cause under Article 283 does not necessarily imply
delinquency or culpability on the part of the employee. Instead, the dismissal process is initiated by the
employers exercise of his management prerogative, i.e. when the employer opts to install labor saving
devices, when he decides to cease business operations or when, as in this case, he undertakes to implement a
retrenchment program.
The clear-cut distinction between a dismissal for just cause under Article 282 and a dismissal for authorized
cause under Article 283 is further reinforced by the fact that in the first, payment of separation pay, as a rule,
is not required, while in the second, the law requires payment of separation pay.9
For these reasons, there ought to be a difference in treatment when the ground for dismissal is one of the just
causes under Article 282, and when based on one of the authorized causes under Article 283.
Accordingly, it is wise to hold that: (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282 but the
employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction to be imposed upon him should
be tempered because the dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act imputable to the employee; and
(2) if the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Article 283 but the employer failed to comply with
the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiffer because the dismissal process was initiated by the
employers exercise of his management prerogative.
The records before us reveal that, indeed, JAKA was suffering from serious business losses at the time it
terminated respondents employment. As aptly found by the NLRC:

"A careful study of the evidence presented by the respondent-appellant corporation shows that the audited
Financial Statement of the corporation for the periods 1996, 1997 and 1998 were submitted by the
respondent-appellant corporation, The Statement of Income and Deficit found in the Audited Financial
Statement of the respondent-appellant corporation clearly shows the following in 1996, the deficit of the
respondent-appellant corporation was P188,218,419.00 or 94.11% of the stockholders [sic] equity which
amounts to P200,000,000.00. In 1997 when the retrenchment program of respondent-appellant corporation
was undertaken, the deficit ballooned to P247,222,569.00 or 123.61% of the stockholders equity, thus a
capital deficiency or impairment of equity ensued. In 1998, the deficit grew to P355,794,897.00 or 177% of
the stockholders equity. From 1996 to 1997, the deficit grew by more that (sic) 31% while in 1998 the deficit
grew by more than 47%.
The Statement of Income and Deficit of the respondent-appellant corporation to prove its alleged losses was
prepared by an independent auditor, SGV & Co. It convincingly showed that the respondent-appellant
corporation was in dire financial straits, which the complainants-appellees failed to dispute. The losses incurred
by the respondent-appellant corporation are clearly substantial and sufficiently proven with clear and
satisfactory evidence. Losses incurred were adequately shown with respondent-appellants audited financial
statement. Having established the loss incurred by the respondent-appellant corporation, it necessarily
necessarily (sic) follows that the ground in support of retrenchment existed at the time the complainantsappellees were terminated. We cannot therefore sustain the findings of the Labor Arbiter that the alleged
losses of the respondent-appellant was [sic] not well substantiated by substantial proofs. It is therefore logical
for the corporation to implement a retrenchment program to prevent further losses." 10
Noteworthy it is, moreover, to state that herein respondents did not assail the foregoing finding of the NLRC
which, incidentally, was also affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
It is, therefore, established that there was ground for respondents dismissal, i.e., retrenchment, which is one
of the authorized causes enumerated under Article 283 of the Labor Code. Likewise, it is established that JAKA
failed to comply with the notice requirement under the same Article. Considering the factual circumstances in
the instant case and the above ratiocination, we, therefore, deem it proper to fix the indemnity at P50,000.00.
We likewise find the Court of Appeals to have been in error when it ordered JAKA to pay respondents
separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service. This is because in Reahs
Corporation vs. NLRC,11 we made the following declaration:
"The rule, therefore, is that in all cases of business closure or cessation of operation or undertaking of the
employer, the affected employee is entitled to separation pay. This is consistent with the state policy of treating
labor as a primary social economic force, affording full protection to its rights as well as its welfare. The
exception is when the closure of business or cessation of operations is due to serious business
losses or financial reverses; duly proved, in which case, the right of affected employees to
separation pay is lost for obvious reasons. xxx". (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the assailed decision and resolution of the Court
of Appeals respectively dated November 16, 2001 and January 8, 2002 are hereby SET ASIDE and a new one
entered upholding the legality of the dismissal but ordering petitioner to pay each of the respondents the
amount of P50,000.00, representing nominal damages for non-compliance with statutory due process.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 166208

June 29, 2007

KING OF KINGS TRANSPORT INC., CLAIRE DELA FUENTE and MELISSA LIM, petitioners,
vs.
SANTIAGO O. MAMAC, respondent.
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
Is a verbal appraisal of the charges against the employee a breach of the procedural due process? This is the
main issue to be resolved in this plea for review under Rule 45 of the September 16, 2004 Decision 1 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 81961. Said judgment affirmed the dismissal of bus conductor Santiago
O. Mamac from petitioner King of Kings Transport, Inc. (KKTI), but ordered the bus company to pay full
backwages for violation of the twin-notice requirement and 13th-month pay. Likewise assailed is the December
2, 2004 CA Resolution2 rejecting KKTIs Motion for Reconsideration.
The Facts
Petitioner KKTI is a corporation engaged in public transportation and managed by Claire Dela Fuente and
Melissa Lim.
Respondent Mamac was hired as bus conductor of Don Mariano Transit Corporation (DMTC) on April 29, 1999.
The DMTC employees including respondent formed the Damayan ng mga Manggagawa, Tsuper at ConductorTransport Workers Union and registered it with the Department of Labor and Employment. Pending the holding
of a certification election in DMTC, petitioner KKTI was incorporated with the Securities and Exchange
Commission which acquired new buses. Many DMTC employees were subsequently transferred to KKTI and
excluded from the election.
The KKTI employees later organized the Kaisahan ng mga Kawani sa King of Kings (KKKK) which was
registered with DOLE. Respondent was elected KKKK president.

Respondent was required to accomplish a "Conductors Trip Report" and submit it to the company after each
trip. As a background, this report indicates the ticket opening and closing for the particular day of duty. After
submission, the company audits the reports. Once an irregularity is discovered, the company issues an
"Irregularity Report" against the employee, indicating the nature and details of the irregularity. Thereafter, the
concerned employee is asked to explain the incident by making a written statement or counter-affidavit at the
back of the same Irregularity Report. After considering the explanation of the employee, the company then
makes a determination of whether to accept the explanation or impose upon the employee a penalty for
committing an infraction. That decision shall be stated on said Irregularity Report and will be furnished to the
employee.
Upon audit of the October 28, 2001 Conductors Report of respondent, KKTI noted an irregularity. It discovered
that respondent declared several sold tickets as returned tickets causing KKTI to lose an income of eight
hundred and ninety pesos. While no irregularity report was prepared on the October 28, 2001 incident, KKTI
nevertheless asked respondent to explain the discrepancy. In his letter,3 respondent said that the erroneous
declaration in his October 28, 2001 Trip Report was unintentional. He explained that during that days trip, the
windshield of the bus assigned to them was smashed; and they had to cut short the trip in order to
immediately report the matter to the police. As a result of the incident, he got confused in making the trip
report.
On November 26, 2001, respondent received a letter4 terminating his employment effective November 29,
2001. The dismissal letter alleged that the October 28, 2001 irregularity was an act of fraud against the
company. KKTI also cited as basis for respondents dismissal the other offenses he allegedly committed since
1999.
On December 11, 2001, respondent filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal deductions, nonpayment of
13th-month pay, service incentive leave, and separation pay. He denied committing any infraction and alleged
that his dismissal was intended to bust union activities. Moreover, he claimed that his dismissal was effected
without due process.
In its April 3, 2002 Position Paper,5 KKTI contended that respondent was legally dismissed after his commission
of a series of misconducts and misdeeds. It claimed that respondent had violated the trust and confidence
reposed upon him by KKTI. Also, it averred that it had observed due process in dismissing respondent and
maintained that respondent was not entitled to his money claims such as service incentive leave and 13thmonth pay because he was paid on commission or percentage basis.
On September 16, 2002, Labor Arbiter Ramon Valentin C. Reyes rendered judgment dismissing respondents
Complaint for lack of merit.6
Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On August 29, 2003, the
NLRC rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

SO ORDERED.7
Respondent moved for reconsideration but it was denied through the November 14, 2003 Resolution 8 of the
NLRC.
Thereafter, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA urging the nullification of the NLRC Decision
and Resolution.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Affirming the NLRC, the CA held that there was just cause for respondents dismissal. It ruled that
respondents act in "declaring sold tickets as returned tickets x x x constituted fraud or acts of dishonesty
justifying his dismissal."9
Also, the appellate court sustained the finding that petitioners failed to comply with the required procedural
due process prior to respondents termination. However, following the doctrine in Serrano v. NLRC, 10 it modified
the award of PhP 10,000 as indemnification by awarding full backwages from the time respondents
employment was terminated until finality of the decision.
Moreover, the CA held that respondent is entitled to the 13th-month pay benefit.
Hence, we have this petition.
The Issues
Petitioner raises the following assignment of errors for our consideration:
Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in awarding in favor of the complainant/private respondent, full
back wages, despite the denial of his petition for certiorari.
Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in ruling that KKTI did not comply with the requirements of
procedural due process before dismissing the services of the complainant/private respondent.
Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals rendered an incorrect decision in that [sic] it awarded in favor of the
complaint/private respondent, 13th month pay benefits contrary to PD 851. 11
The Courts Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious.

WHEREFORE, the decision dated 16 September 2002 is MODIFIED in that respondent King of Kings Transport
Inc. is hereby ordered to indemnify complainant in the amount of ten thousand pesos (P10,000) for failure to
comply with due process prior to termination.

The disposition of the first assigned error depends on whether petitioner KKTI complied with the due process
requirements in terminating respondents employment; thus, it shall be discussed secondly.

The other findings are AFFIRMED.

Non-compliance with the Due Process Requirements

Due process under the Labor Code involves two aspects: first, substantivethe valid and authorized causes of
termination of employment under the Labor Code; and second, proceduralthe manner of dismissal. 12 In the
present case, the CA affirmed the findings of the labor arbiter and the NLRC that the termination of
employment of respondent was based on a "just cause." This ruling is not at issue in this case. The question to
be determined is whether the procedural requirements were complied with.
Art. 277 of the Labor Code provides the manner of termination of employment, thus:
Art. 277. Miscellaneous Provisions.x x x
(b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against
dismissal except for a just and authorized cause without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article
283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a
written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so desires in
accordance with company rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of
Labor and Employment. Any decision taken by the employer shall be without prejudice to the right of the
worker to contest the validity or legality of his dismissal by filing a complaint with the regional branch of the
National Labor Relations Commission. The burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized
cause shall rest on the employer.
Accordingly, the implementing rule of the aforesaid provision states:
SEC. 2. Standards of due process; requirements of notice.In all cases of termination of employment, the
following standards of due process shall be substantially observed:
I. For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Code:
(a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving said
employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side.
(b) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if he so
desires is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence, or rebut the evidence presented
against him.
(c) A written notice of termination served on the employee, indicating that upon due consideration of all the
circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination. 13
In case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be served on the employees last known address. 14
To clarify, the following should be considered in terminating the services of employees:
(1) The first written notice to be served on the employees should contain the specific causes or grounds for
termination against them, and a directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their written
explanation within a reasonable period. "Reasonable opportunity" under the Omnibus Rules means every kind

of assistance that management must accord to the employees to enable them to prepare adequately for their
defense.15 This should be construed as a period of at least five (5) calendar days from receipt of the notice to
give the employees an opportunity to study the accusation against them, consult a union official or lawyer,
gather data and evidence, and decide on the defenses they will raise against the complaint. Moreover, in order
to enable the employees to intelligently prepare their explanation and defenses, the notice should contain a
detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as basis for the charge against the employees.
A general description of the charge will not suffice. Lastly, the notice should specifically mention which
company rules, if any, are violated and/or which among the grounds under Art. 282 is being charged against
the employees.
(2) After serving the first notice, the employers should schedule and conduct a hearing or conference wherein
the employees will be given the opportunity to: (1) explain and clarify their defenses to the charge against
them; (2) present evidence in support of their defenses; and (3) rebut the evidence presented against them
by the management. During the hearing or conference, the employees are given the chance to defend
themselves personally, with the assistance of a representative or counsel of their choice. Moreover, this
conference or hearing could be used by the parties as an opportunity to come to an amicable settlement.
(3) After determining that termination of employment is justified, the employers shall serve the employees a
written notice of termination indicating that: (1) all circumstances involving the charge against the employees
have been considered; and (2) grounds have been established to justify the severance of their employment.
In the instant case, KKTI admits that it had failed to provide respondent with a "charge sheet." 16 However, it
maintains that it had substantially complied with the rules, claiming that "respondent would not have issued a
written explanation had he not been informed of the charges against him." 17
We are not convinced.
First, respondent was not issued a written notice charging him of committing an infraction. The law is clear on
the matter. A verbal appraisal of the charges against an employee does not comply with the first notice
requirement. InPepsi Cola Bottling Co. v. NLRC,18 the Court held that consultations or conferences are not a
substitute for the actual observance of notice and hearing. Also, in Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. v. Mesano,19 the
Court, sanctioning the employer for disregarding the due process requirements, held that the employees
written explanation did not excuse the fact that there was a complete absence of the first notice.
Second, even assuming that petitioner KKTI was able to furnish respondent an Irregularity Report notifying
him of his offense, such would not comply with the requirements of the law. We observe from the irregularity
reports against respondent for his other offenses that such contained merely a general description of the
charges against him. The reports did not even state a company rule or policy that the employee had allegedly
violated. Likewise, there is no mention of any of the grounds for termination of employment under Art. 282 of
the Labor Code. Thus, KKTIs "standard" charge sheet is not sufficient notice to the employee.
Third, no hearing was conducted. Regardless of respondents written explanation, a hearing was still necessary
in order for him to clarify and present evidence in support of his defense. Moreover, respondent made the
letter merely to explain the circumstances relating to the irregularity in his October 28, 2001 Conductors Trip
Report. He was unaware that a dismissal proceeding was already being effected. Thus, he was surprised to

receive the November 26, 2001 termination letter indicating as grounds, not only his October 28, 2001
infraction, but also his previous infractions.

Petitioner KKTI maintains that respondent was paid on purely commission basis; thus, the latter is not entitled
to receive the 13th-month pay benefit. However, applying the ruling in Philippine Agricultural Commercial and
Industrial Workers Union v. NLRC,23 the CA held that respondent is entitled to the said benefit.

Sanction for Non-compliance with Due Process Requirements

As stated earlier, after a finding that petitioners failed to comply with the due process requirements, the CA
awarded full backwages in favor of respondent in accordance with the doctrine in Serrano v. NLRC. 20 However,
the doctrine in Serrano had already been abandoned in Agabon v. NLRC by ruling that if the dismissal is done
without due process, the employer should indemnify the employee with nominal damages. 21
Thus, for non-compliance with the due process requirements in the termination of respondents employment,
petitioner KKTI is sanctioned to pay respondent the amount of thirty thousand pesos (PhP 30,000) as
damages.
Thirteenth (13th)-Month Pay
Section 3 of the Rules Implementing Presidential Decree No. 851 22 provides the exceptions in the coverage of
the payment of the 13th-month benefit. The provision states:
SEC. 3. Employers covered.The Decree shall apply to all employers except to:
xxxx
e) Employers of those who are paid on purely commission, boundary, or task basis, and those who are paid a
fixed amount for performing a specific work, irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof,
except where the workers are paid on piece-rate basis in which case the employer shall be covered by this
issuance insofar as such workers are concerned.

It was erroneous for the CA to apply the case of Philippine Agricultural Commercial and Industrial Workers
Union. Notably in the said case, it was established that the drivers and conductors praying for 13th- month pay
were not paid purely on commission. Instead, they were receiving a commission in addition to a fixed or
guaranteed wage or salary. Thus, the Court held that bus drivers and conductors who are paid a fixed or
guaranteed minimum wage in case their commission be less than the statutory minimum, and commissions
only in case where they are over and above the statutory minimum, are entitled to a 13th-month pay
equivalent to one-twelfth of their total earnings during the calendar year.
On the other hand, in his Complaint,24 respondent admitted that he was paid on commission only. Moreover,
this fact is supported by his pay slips25 which indicated the varying amount of commissions he was receiving
each trip. Thus, he was excluded from receiving the 13th-month pay benefit.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED and the September 16, 2004 Decision of the CA is MODIFIED by
deleting the award of backwages and 13th-month pay. Instead, petitioner KKTI is ordered to indemnify
respondent the amount of thirty thousand pesos (PhP 30,000) as nominal damages for failure to comply with
the due process requirements in terminating the employment of respondent.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.