Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 158693. November 17, 2004.
_______________
* EN BANC.
574
flicting, as in this case, the reviewing court may delve into the
records and examine for itself the questioned findings.
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.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
575
576
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
577
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
578
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
579
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
580
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
581
582
been embedded in all our Constitutions, and thus at the very least
should be respected and protected by our courts. Social justice is
that virtue by which individuals and groups fulfill their
obligations to human society by contributing positively to the
complete well-being of their fellowmen considered as members of
that society, and hence regulate all their actions accordingly.
Social justice as a creed in the 1935 Constitution was crafted by
Delegate Jose C. Locsin. He persistently pounced on the necessity
583
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
584
585
586
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
extreme cases, e.g., where the employee threatens the life of the
employer, are the exceptions rather than the ordinary and usual
cases. As such, rules governing them should not be used as the
general rule. Rather, employers should be reminded that under
our system of government, even the most hardened criminals are
given their day in court. Employees are not entitled to anything
less.
Same; Same; Same; Security of Tenure; In the hierarchy of
rights of an employee, the right to security of tenure is high, if not
the highest.—In the hierarchy of rights of an employee, the right
to security of tenure is high, if not the highest. Its paramount
value is recognized and guaranteed under our new Constitution.
Consequently, the first paragraph of Article XIII, Section 3 of the
1987 Constitution, extends the protective mantle of the
Constitution to all of labor including the promotion of full
employment. The second paragraph specifies the guaranteed right
to security of tenure. All other rights, e.g., the right to collective
bargaining and negotiations,
587
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
588
589
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
590
591
Same; Same; Same; The Labor Code, in its inception, did not
require notice or hearing before an employer could terminate an
employee for just cause.—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,
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 19/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
592
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 20/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
593
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.
Same; Same; Same; 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.—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. 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. Of
course, this Court should not be insensate to the means and
methods by which the entrenched powerful class may maneuver
the sociopolitical 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.
Same; Same; Same; While the Bill of Rights maintains a
position of primacy in the constitutional hierarchy, it has scope
and limitations that must be respected and asserted by the Court,
even though they may at times serve somewhat bitter ends.—While
the Bill of Rights maintains a position of primacy in the
constitutional hierarchy, it has scope and limitations that must be
respected and asserted by the Court, even though they may at
times serve somewhat
594
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 22/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
595
596
597
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 25/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 26/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
598
599
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.
600
601
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.
Same; Same; The damages referred under Section 217(4) of
the Labor Code are those available under the Civil Code, 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.—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. 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 employer-
employee relationship, referral was instead made to the concept of
damages as enumerated and defined under the Civil Code.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 30/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
602
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
1
This petition for review seeks to reverse the decision of the
Court of Appeals dated January 23, 2003, in CA-G.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 2
board and cornice installers on January 2, 1992 until
February 23, 1999 when they were dismissed for
abandonment of work.
Petitioners then filed a complaint
3
for illegal dismissal
and payment of money claims 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:
_______________
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 31/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
603
_______________
4 Id., p. 92.
5 Id., p. 131.
6 Id., p. 173.
7 Id., p. 20.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 32/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
604
_______________
605
_______________
606
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 34/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
607
continuance
20
in the service will patently be inimical to his
interests.
After establishing that the terminations were for a just
and valid cause, we now determine if the procedures for
dismissal were observed.
The procedure for terminating an employee is found in
Book VI, Rule I, Section 2(d) of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code:
_______________
608
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 37/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
610
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 38/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
24 Id., at p. 76.
25 Id.
611
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 40/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
613
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,31in
lieu of separation pay, nominal damages to the employee. x x x.
_______________
614
_______________
615
borer authorizes
33
neither oppression nor self-destruction of
the employer.
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,
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 43/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
616
justice must always be served for 35the poor and the rich alike,
according to the mandate of the law.
_______________
35 Gelos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86186, 8 May 1992, 208 SCRA
608, 616.
36 G.R. No. 112100, 27 May 1994, 232 SCRA 613, 618.
37 Art. 2221, Civil Code.
617
_______________
38 G.R. No. 108405, April 4, 2003, 400 SCRA 557 citing Kwikway
Engineering Works v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
85014, 22 March 1991, 195 SCRA 526, 532; Aurelio v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 99034, 12 April 1993, 221 SCRA 432, 443;
and Sampaguita Garments Corporation v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 102406, 17 June 1994, 233 SCRA 260, 265.
39 Id., citing Better Buildings, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 109714, 15 December 1997, 283 SCRA 242, 251;
Iran v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 121927, 22 April
1998, 289 SCRA 433, 442.
40 Savellano v. Northwest Airlines, G.R. No. 151783, 8 July 2003, 405
SCRA 416.
618
_______________
619
_______________
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 47/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
(a) In cases where the worker is insured with his consent by the
employer, and the deduction is to recompense the employer for the
amount paid by him as premium on the insurance;
(b) For union dues, in cases where the right of the worker or his union
to check off has been recognized by the employer or authorized in
writing by the individual worker concerned; and
(c) In cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations
issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
620
DISSENTING OPINION
PUNO, J.:
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 49/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
622
Our ten (10) years experience with Wenphil is not a happy one.
Unscrupulous employers have abused the Wenphil ruling. They
have dismissed without notice employees including those who are
not as eminently undesirable as the Wenphil employee. They
dismissed
_______________
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 50/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
623
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 51/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
624
_______________
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 52/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
625
_______________
6 Ponencia, 15.
7 See Fabre, C., Social Rights Under the Constitution. Government and
the Decent Life. Oxford University Press, 2000.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 53/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
626
8
their actions accordingly. Social justice as a creed in the
1935 Constitution was crafted by Delegate Jose C. Locsin.
He persistently pounced on the necessity of including social
justice in the Constitution to protect those who have little
in life. In the course of the debates, the core concept of
social justice was developed to mean—
1935 Constitution
_______________
8 Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of the Working Classes). Encyclical of His
Holiness Pope Leo XIII on Capital and Labor issued on May 15, 1891.
9 I J. Aruego, The Framing of the Philippine Constitution 147 (1936).
10 L-46496, May 29, 1939, 7 Lawyer’s Journal 487.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 54/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
627
_______________
11 Id., p. 494.
12 70 Phil. 340 (1940).
13 Id., p. 357.
628
provisions on social
14
justice and on labor which was then
being considered. 15
As early as Calalang v. Williams, the Court already
threw in some wind of caution—
_______________
629
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 56/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
1973 Constitution
_______________
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 57/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
630
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 58/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
631
1987 Constitution
_______________
21 Id., p. 462.
22 L-24626, June 28, 1974, 57 SCRA 489.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 59/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
632
25
Justice and Human Rights which properly includes a full
section on labor—
LABOR
Sec. 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full
employment and equality of 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 of 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.
_______________
633
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 61/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
634
_______________
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 62/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
635
_______________
636
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 63/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
637
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 64/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
638
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 65/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
45
before termination may be effected. Thus, the inviolability
of prior notice and hearing before an employee could be
dismissed was iterated and reiterated. 46In Miguel v.
National Labor Relations Commission, where the
employee was simply handed his walking papers without
any explanation, this Court held that the dismissal was
unwarranted and ruled that “[t]he due process requirement
is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with at will.
Its disregard is a matter of serious concern since it
constitutes a safeguard of the highest
47
order in response to
man’s innate sense of justice.” Kwikway Engineering
48
Works v. National Labor Relations Commission, explained
that “[t]he twin requirements of notice and hearing
constitute essential elements of due process in cases of
employee dismissal: the requirement of notice is intended
to inform the employee concerned of the employer’s intent
to dismiss and the reason for the proposed dismissal; upon
the other hand, the requirement of hearing affords the
employee an opportunity to answer his employer’s charges
against him accordingly to defend himself therefrom before
dismissal is effected. Neither of these two requirements can
be dispensed with without running afoul49of the due process
requirement of the 1987 Constitution.” In a stream of
ceaseless cases, we adhered to the doctrine that failure to
comply with the two-notice rule makes the dismissal illegal
and rein-
_______________
639
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 66/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
50
statement or payment of separation pay in order. In fine,
“fire the employee,
51
and let him explain later” violates this
hallowed rule. It has always been this way—until
Wenphil.
_______________
640
_______________
641
_______________
642
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 69/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
643
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 70/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
644
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 71/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
66 Article XIII (Social Justice and Human Rights), Section 3 of the 1987
Constitution.
645
646
_______________
647
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 74/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
648
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 75/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
It would imply at the very least that where a penalty less punitive
would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by labor
ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe. It is not only
_______________
649
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 76/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
76 Id., p. 131.
77 Juan Somavia, ILO Director-General, June 2001.
650
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 77/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
78
tural and spiritual level. Shylock said it well: “You79
take
my life when you do take the means whereby I live.”
Nine. To simply allow payment of nominal damages for
violation of employee’s right to due process is to give undue
advantage to employers. One does not need to have a
stratospheric mind to know that the Constitution gave
greater rights to employees over their employers. The
intent is to equalize the fight of the underprivileged against
the overprivileged. We cannot allow the employers to
marginalize the right of the workingman to due process for
a few pesos without mocking the protection accorded by the
Constitution to the powerless. The deprivation of the right
to security of tenure and due process is beyond monetary
valuation. In fine, to lengthen the longevity of Serrano is to
sharpen the dangerous divide between the haves and have-
nots in our society. But Agabon is not merely extending
Serrano. Agabon is far worse than Serrano.
In Serrano, the dismissed employee was awarded
backwages from the time his employment was terminated
until it was determined that the termination was for an
authorized cause. Using the facts of the instant case as an
illustration, petitioner-employees who were dismissed in
February 1999 stand to get roughly 63 months of
backwages under Serrano, i.e., the number of months from
the time they were dismissed in February 1999 until
November 2004 when it was determined that the
termination was for just cause. In Agabon, however, the
dismissed employee is merely being granted an indemnity
equivalent to Thirty Thousand Pesos. This is exactly
Wenphil more than a decade later, with the cost of money
and inflation factored in. Indeed, the sorry plight of the
workers has just been worsened, if not preserved, by the
new majority ruling.
_______________
651
_______________
652
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The core issue of the present case concerns the legal effect
of and the corresponding sanction for the failure of an
employer to give an employee the pre-dismissal written
notice of termination and opportunity to be heard required
under the Labor Code and its implementing Rules.
653
1
In Serrano v. NLRC, the Court held that such termination
of employment should be considered “ineffectual” and, as
such, sanctioned with payment of full back wages plus—in
case the dismissal was for an authorized
2
cause—separation
pay in accordance with Article 283 of the Labor Code. In
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 80/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
654
4
Labor Code and Section 2 of Rule XXIII of the 1999
Implementing Rules and Regulations. The majority holds
that for violation of the employee’s right to statutory due
process, an indemnity in the amount of P30,000 should be
awarded to the
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 81/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
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. The Secretary of the Department of
Labor and Employment may suspend the effects of the termination pending
resolution of the dispute in the event of a prima facie finding by the appropriate
official of the Department of Labor and Employment before whom such dispute is
pending that the termination may cause a serious labor dispute or is in
implementation of a mass lay-off.”
(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.”
655
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 82/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
656
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 83/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
657
_______________
658
11 12 13
prosecutions to administrative cases and election cases
as well. I made a summary of these Decisions in my
aforesaid Serrano Opinion, which I shall no longer repeat
here.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 85/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
SCRA 690, October 23, 1984; Philippine National Bank v. Apalisok, 199
SCRA 92, July 12, 1991.
11 People v. Bocar, 138 SCRA 166, 170-171, August 16, 1985; People v.
San Diego, 135 Phil. 514; 26 SCRA 522, December 24, 1968; People v.
Sola, 191 Phil. 21; 103 SCRA 393, March 17, 1981; People v. Dacudao, 170
SCRA 489, February 21, 1989; People v. Calo, Jr., 186 SCRA 620, June 18,
1990; People v. Burgos, 200 SCRA 67, August 2, 1991; People v. Parazo,
369 Phil. 398; 310 SCRA 146, July 8, 1999 (Resolution on the Motion for
Reconsideration).
12 Fabella v. Court of Appeals, 346 Phil. 940; 282 SCRA 256, November
28, 1997.
13 Villarosa v. Commission on Elections, 371 Phil. 497; 319 SCRA 470,
November 29, 1999.
14 §18, Art. II, 1987 Constitution.
15 §3, Art. XIII, Ibid.
659
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 86/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
16 331 Phil. 476, 485; 263 SCRA 174, 182, October 15, 1996, per
Romero, J.
661
Summary
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 88/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
SEPARATE OPINION:
TINGA, J.:
Prologue
_______________
663
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-à-vis the warranted dismissal.
Ostensibly,
2
the matter has been settled by our decision
in Serrano , 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 for3
the termination of his employment without prior notice.
Still, the Court has, for good reason, opted to reexamine the
so-called Serrano doctrine through the present petition
Antecedent Facts
_______________
2 Id.
3 Id., at pp. 443, 445, 448; pp. 472, 474, 476.
4 Rollo, p. 42.
5 Id., at p. 32.
664
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 9
given his thirteenth (13th)
month pay for the year 1998.
_______________
6 Ibid.
7 Id., at pp. 59-60.
8 Id., at p. 15.
9 Id., at p. 34.
665
_______________
10 Id., at p. 92.
11 Id., at p. 91. The address indicated in the identification cards was “V
6 Cruz Iron Works, E. Rodriguez Parañaque City.”
12 Ibid., citing Philippine Air Lines v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 279 SCRA 533 (1997).
13 In a Decision dated 21 August 2000, penned by Commissioner V.R.
Calaycay, and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner R. Aquino and
Commissioner A. Gacutan.
666
_______________
14 Rollo, p. 127.
15 Penned by Associate Justice M. Buzon, concurred in by Associate
Justices J. Guevara-Salonga and D. Pine.
667
_______________
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 94/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
668
ments 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
19
of address
as indicated in the identification cards. Further, 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 20
to notify the employee of the decision of
dismissal. 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 not21
they were illegally dismissed from their
employment. There are several dimensions though to this
issue which warrant full consideration.
_______________
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 95/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
19 Id., at p. 22.
20 Id., at p. 23 citing Kingsize Manufacturing Corporation v. National
Labor Relations Commission, 238 SCRA 349 (1994).
21 Rollo, p. 20.
22 Palencia v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. L-75763,
21 August 1987, 153 SCRA 247; Pure Blue Industries v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 115879, 16 April 1997, 271 SCRA 259.
669
_______________
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 96/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
670
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 97/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
26 Supra note 6.
27 Id.
671
672
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 98/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
Constitutional Considerations
Of Due Process and the Notice-Hearing
Requirement in Labor Termination Cases
_______________
28 Supra note 1.
29 Supra note 1 at p. 446; p. 469.
673
_______________
674
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 100/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
675
36
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 101/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
36
Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. Court of Appeals 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
37
on his constitutional
right to due process of law.”
Still, this theory has been refuted, pellucidly and
effectively to my mind, by Justice Mendoza’s disquisition in
Serrano, thus:
_______________
676
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 102/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
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 38
or duly
authorized representatives, or other analogous cases)
39
The Court in the landmark case of People v. Marti
clarified the proper dimensions of the Bill of Rights.
_______________
677
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 103/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
678
_______________
679
_______________
43 See e.g., Morehead v. State of New York, 298 U.S. 587 (1936), which
affirmed the invalidity of minimum wage laws as previously declared in
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923).
44 Famously justified by the Supreme Court as an assertion of the
“liberty of contract”, or “the right to contract about one’s affairs”, as
contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. Adkins v. Children’s Hospital,
261 U.S. 525, 545. (1923). But as Justice Holmes famously critiqued:
“Contract is not specially mentioned in the text (of the Fourteenth
Amendment) that we have to construe. It is merely an example of doing
what you want to do, embodied in the word liberty. But pretty much all
law consists in forbidding men to do some things that they want to do, and
contract is no more exempt from law than other acts.” Adkins v. Children’s
Hospital, Id., at p. 568.
45 See People v. Tudtud, G.R. No. 144037, 26 September 2003, 412
SCRA 142.
680
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-
682
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 108/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
683
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 109/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
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
of 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 complied47
with before a worker can be dismissed from his employment.
_______________
684
_______________
48 335 Phil. 82; 267 SCRA 408 (1997). The Court therein was divided, with
twelve voting for, and three against the decision. Interestingly, both Justices Puno
and Panganiban adopted the dissenting position that the provisions of Article XII
of the Constitution alone were insufficient to accord the Filipino bidder a
preferential right to obtain the winning bid for Manila Hotel. Their concession as
to the enforceability of paragraph 2, Section 10, Article XII of the Constitution
without enabling legislation was in a situation wherein if the bids of the Filipino
and the foreign entity were tied. Id., at p. 154 (J. Puno, dissenting) and 154 (J.
Panganiban, dissenting).
685
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 111/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
implementing statute.
_______________
686
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 112/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
687
_______________
688
_______________
54 Id., at p. 644.
55 The test suggested by Justice Puno in the Manila Hotel case, supra
note 47, is as definitive as any proposed method of analysis could ever be.
“A searching inquiry should be made to find out if the provision is
intended as a present enactment, complete in itself as a definitive law, or
if it needs future legislation for completion and enforcement. The inquiry
demands a micro-analysis and the context of the provision in question.” J.
Puno, dissenting, Id., at pp. 141-142. See also Rev. Pamatong v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 161872, 13 April 2004, 427 SCRA 96.
689
_______________
690
58
whether such right was violated. 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
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 116/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
691
692
_______________
693
_______________
61 Supra note 2.
694
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,
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 120/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
695
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 121/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
696
65
not entitled to the payment of separation benefits.
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
66
of time or because of
the realities of the situation. 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 67entitle him to the termination pay
provided in the Code.” 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
Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 122/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
697
states:
_______________
698
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 124/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
699
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 125/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
_______________
700
701
_______________
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 127/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
702
_______________
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 128/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
84 See Article 2216, Civil Code. See also Saludo v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 95536, 23 March 1992, 207 SCRA 498.
703
_______________
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 129/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
704
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 88award must be
reasonable under the circumstances. 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, 89or the employer committed an act
oppressive to labor. Exemplary damages may avail if the
dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive or
malevolent manner.
_______________
705
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 130/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
706
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 131/132
8/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 442
——o0o——
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b91ea59e7c73cf267000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 132/132