University of the Philippines College of Law

J00D
d. Procedural Requirements – [Essential Elements; Liability for non-compliance with procedural
requirements]

JAKA FOOD PROCESSING CORPORATION, Petitioners,

v.
Case Name DARWIN PACOT, ROBERT PAROHINOG, DAVID BISNAR, MARLON
DOMINGO, RHOEL LESCANO and JONATHAN CAGABCAB,
Respondents.
DN | Date [G.R. NO. 151378 | March 28, 2005]
Ponente GARCIA, J.:
Petitioner/s Jaka Foods Processing Corporation – Employer
Darwin Pacot– Employee of petitioner
Robert Parohinog– Employee of petitioner
David Bisnar– Employee of petitioner
Respondent/s
Marlon Domingo– Employee of petitioner
Rhoel Lescano– Employee of petitioner
Jonathan Cagabcab – Employee of petitioner
Respondents were validly dismissed by petitioner, JAKA due to retrenchment.
However, JAKA failed to comply with the written notice requirement under
LC 283. Thus, respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. CA ordered
separation pay.

Case SC held that failure to comply with written notice requirement does not make the
Summary dismissal illegal. Instead, award of damages only. SC also differentiated
between dismissal for just cause and authorized causes. In the former,
termination was due to fault of employee, while the latter dismissal was due to
exercise of management prerogative. Thus, in cases where procedural due
process was violated penalties should be lesser if the dismissal was for just
cause and graver if dismissal was for authorized cause.
 Failure to Comply with written notice requirement i.e. violation of procedural
due process
o Just Cause – Sanction upon employer should be tempered, because
dismissal was initiated by an act of the employee.
Doctrine
o Authorized cause – sanction should be stiffer/worse because the
dismissal process was initiated by the employer via management
prerogative.

RELEVANT FACTS
1. Respondents were hired by petitioner, JAKA Foods Processing Corporation.
 2. August 29 1997 – respondents were terminated due to financial difficulties for the
corporation.
3. Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages and non-
payment of Service Incentive Leave and 13th month pay before the NLRC via the
regional Arbitration Branch.
a. They claimed that JAKA failed to comply with the written notice requirement
under LC 283.
Case Trail
4. Labor Arbiter – ruled illegal dismissal, ordered reinstatement with full backwages.
5. NLRC – Aug 30 1999 - appealed the LA in toto.
a. January 28 2000 – modified initial decision, granted instead separation pay
equivalent to (1) month + P2000 each for failure to observe due process (written
notice requirement I think)
6. CA – REVERSED NLRC decision on the basis of Serrano v. NLRC. Ordered payment of
separation pay equivalent to (1) month salary, 13th month pay and full backwages.
7. Led to current appeal.

Issue/s Ratio Decidendi

1. W/N  Termination for just cause – In the recent case of Agabon v. NLRC 1, SC
award of held that in case of termination under just cause (LC 282) and there is a
separatio violation of right to statutory due process by failure to serve written notice,
n pay and the SC upheld the termination without separation pay. Instead, awarded
backwage only nominal damages.
s proper?  Distinction between termination for just cause and termination for
– NO authorized cause
o Just Cause – falls under LC 282. Any of the situations therein
implies that the employee has committed a violation against the
employer. Here, employee himself initiated the dismissal process.
o Authorized Cause – LC 283. Violation/delinquency on the part of
the employee is not necessarily implied. Here, dismissal was under
the employer’s exercise of management prerogative such as in the
case of retrenchment.
o This distinction merits different treatment, thus outcomes are
different in cases where employer fails to comply with notice
requirement.
 Failure to Comply with written notice requirement i.e. violation of
procedural due process
o Just Cause – Sanction upon employer should be tempered, because
dismissal was initiated by an act of the employee.
o Authorized cause – sanction should be stiffer/worse because the
1
Agabon was dismissed due to neglect of duties
 dismissal process was initiated by the employer via management
prerogative.
 Application – In the present case, JAKA terminated employment under LC
283 i.e. due to serious business losses which required retrenchment.
Because dismissal was due to authorized causes court fixes indemnity at
P50k. In contrast, damages in Agabon (just cause) was only P30k.

RULING

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.

Notes