1.

Book VI, Rule I, Section 2(d) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code, viz:

“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 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.” [Emphasis & underscoring
supplied.]

2. In the case of Reyes vs. RP Guardian Security Agency, Inc. (GR NO.
193756) the Supreme Court citing the case of Aliling v. Feliciano, the
Supreme Court explained:

“The normal consequences of respondent’s

illegal dismissal, then, are reinstatement without loss
of seniority rights, and payment of backwages
computed from the time compensation was withheld
up to the date of actual reinstatement. Where
reinstatement is no longer viable as an option,
separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for
 every year of service should be awarded as an
alternative. The payment of separation pay is in
addition to payment of backwages.” [Underscoring
ours.]

3. G.R. No. 158693             November 17, 2004

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

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

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, quasi-contracts, 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

Jurisprudence provides for two essential requirements for

abandonment of work to exist. The "failure to report for work or
absence without valid or justifiable reason" and "clear intention to
sever the employer-employee relationship x x x manifested by
some overt acts" should both concur.31 Further, the employee's
deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume his employment
without any intention of returning should be established and
proven by the employer.32

Petitioners failed to prove that it was respondent who voluntarily

refused to report back for work by his defiance and refusal to
accept the memoranda and the notices of absences sent to him.
The CA correctly ruled that petitioners failed to present evidence
that they sent these notices to respondent's last known address
for the purpose of warning him that his continued failure to report
would be construed as abandonment of work.