G.R. 117040 January 27, 2000 EN BANC MENDOZA, J.

RUBEN SERRANO, petitioner,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ISETANN DEPARTMENT
STORE, respondent.

FACTS: Serrano was hired by Isetann Dept. Store as a security checker to apprehend
shoplifters. First hired on October 4, 1984 as a contractual employee eventually becoming
a regular employee six months later, on April 4, 1985. In 1988, he became head of the
Security Checkers of Isetann. Sometime in 1991, Isetann, in a cost-cutting move, decided
to phase out its entire security division and use the services of an independent security
agency instead. On October 11, 1991, Serrano received a written notice informing him of
his termination as Security Head, on the same day, he was fired.
Aggrieved, he filed a case for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of salary, among
others, in the Labor Arbiter. One of his contentions, since he was notified and fired on the
same day, he was not afforded the right to due process. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor
of Serrano, ordering to have him reinstated and his wages paid. Isetann appealed to the
NLRC. The NLRC reversed the previous ruling and Serrano be given “separation pay
equivalent to one month pay for every year of service, unpaid salary, and proportionate
13th month pay.”

ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal was justified.

HELD: Yes. Although the Labor Code provides that a written notice be provided to the
worker at least one month before the termination of his employment, the Court gave three
(3) reasons why the violation of the notice requirement is not a violation of due process.

1. “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.”

2. “...notice and hearing are required under the Due Process Clause before the
power of organized society are brought to bear upon the individual...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.”

3. “The notice requirement under [the Labor Code] 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.”
 The Court further added that the consequences of violating the notice requirement
would only make the employer liable for damages, but the dismissal would not be
rendered void. They added, “The employer's failure to comply with the notice requirement
does not constitute a denial of due process but a mere failure to observe a procedure for
the termination of employment which makes the termination of employment merely
ineffectual.” The Court GRANTED the petition reiterating the above-stated ruling adding
that Serrano be paid “full backwages from the time his employment was terminated on
October 11, 1991 up to the time the decision herein becomes final.”