Agabon v NLRC Digest

CASE #2 [G.R. No. 158693 November 17, 2004] VIRGILIO AGABON, et al. v. NLRC c. FACTS Virgilio and Jenny Agabon worked for respondent Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. as gypsum and cornice installers from January 1992 until Feb 1999. Their employment was terminated when they were dismissed for allegedly abandoning their work. Petitioners Agabon then filed a case of illegal dismissal. /// The LA ruled in favor of the spouses and ordered Riviera to pay them their money claims. The NLRC reversed the LA, finding that the Agabons were indeed guilty of abandonment. The CA modified the LA by ruling that there was abandonment but ordering Riviera to pay the Agabons’ money claims.///

In this case, Riviera failed to notify the Agabons of their termination to their last known addresses. Hence, they violated the procedural requirement laid down by the law in the termination of employees. 3.

The arguments of both parties are as follows: The Agabons claim, among others that Riviera violated the requirements of notice and hearing when the latter did not send written letters of termination to their addresses. Riviera admitted to not sending the Agabons letters of termination to their last known addresses because the same would be futile, as the Agabons do not reside there anymore. However, it also claims that the Agabons abandoned their work. More than once, they subcontracted installation works for other companies. They already were warned of termination if the same act was repeated, still, they disregarded the warning. ISSUES 1. Whether the Agabons were illegally dismissed 2. Whether Riviera violated the requirements of notice and hearing 3. Is the violation of the procedural requirements of notice and hearing for termination of employees a violation of the Constitutional due process? 4. What are the consequences of violating the procedural requirements of termination? RULING: Valid dismissal but violation of statutory due process = payment of nominal damages (P30,000) & balance of 13th month pay, etc. 1. No. There was just cause for their dismissal, i.e., abandonment. Art. 282 specifies the grounds for just dismissal, to wit: a. Serious misconduct or willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the employer or his duly authorized representative in connection with the employee’s work b. Gross and habitual neglect of the by the employee of his duties (includes abandonment) c. Fraud or willful breach of the trust reposed by the employer or his duly authorized representative to the employee d. Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of the employer or any member of his immediate family or his duly authorized representative e. Any other causes analogous to the foregoing. To establish abandonment, two elements must be present: a. The unjustified failure of the employee to report for work b. A clear intention to sever e-e relationship, manifested by overt acts Here, the Agabons were frequently absent from work for having performed installation work for another company, despite prior warning given by Riviera. This clearly establishes an intention to sever the e-e relationship between them, and which constitutes abandonment. 2.

Yes. While the employer has the right to expect good performance, diligence, good conduct and loyalty from its employees, it also has the duty to provide just compensation to his employees and to observe the procedural requirements of notice and hearing in the termination of his employees. Procedure of termination (Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code): a. A written notice to the employee specifying the grounds for termination and giving the employee reasonable opportunity to be heard b. A hearing where the employee is given the opportunity to respond to the charges against him and present evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him (if he so requests)

A written notice of termination indicating that grounds have been established to justify his termination upon due consideration of all circumstances

No. Constitutional due process is that provided under the Constitution, which involves the protection of the individual against governmental oppression and the assurance of his rights In civil, criminal and administrative proceedings; statutory due process is that found in the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules and protects the individual from being unjustly terminated without just or authorized cause after notice and hearing. The two are similar in that they both have two aspects: substantive due process and procedural due process. However, they differ in that under the Labor Code, the first one refers to the valid and authorized causes of employment termination, while the second one refers to the manner of dismissal. A denial of statutory due process is not the same as a denial of Constitutional due process for reasons enunciated in Serrano v. NLRC.

4.

The dismissal is valid, but Riviera should pay nominal damages to the Agabons in vindication of the latter for violating their right to notice and hearing. The penalty is in the nature of a penalty or indemnification, the amount dependent on the facts of each case, including the nature of gravity of offense of the employer. In this case, the Serrano doctrine was re-examined. First, in the Serrano case, the dismissal was upheld, but it was held to be ineffectual (without legal effect). Hence, Serrano was still entitled to the payment of his backwages from the time of dismissal until the promulgation of the court of the existence of an authorized cause. Further, he was entitled to his separation pay as mandated under Art. 283. The ruling is unfair to employers and has the danger of the following consequences: a. The encouragement of filing frivolous suits even by notorious employees who were justly dismissed but were deprived of statutory due process; they are rewarded by invoking due process b. It would create absurd situations where there is just or authorized cause but a procedural infirmity invalidates the termination, ie an employee who became a criminal and threatened his co-workers’ lives, who fled and could not be faound c. It could discourage investments that would generate employment in the economy Second, the payment of backwages is unjustified as only illegal termination gives the employee the right to be paid full backwages. When the dismissal is valid or upheld, the employee has no right to backwages. ADDITIONAL NOTES: 1. Dismissals based on just causes: acts or omissions attributable to the employee; no right to claim backwages or to pay separation pay (separation pay is subject to exception, ie if termination is not based on serious misconduct or a conduct reflecting the moral depravity of a person, separation pay may be granted by reason of social justice) Dismissals based on authorized causes: involve grounds provided under the Labor Code; employee (and DOLE) is entitled the payment of separation pay (redundancy and installation of laborsaving devices: 1 month pay or 1 month/yr of service, whichever is higher; retrenchment and closure or cessation of business: 1 month pay or ½ month per year of service, whichever is higher) Illegal termination: employee is entitled to the payment of full backwages as well as reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, inclusive of allowances and other monetary claims from the time compensation was withheld until reinstatement; if reinstatement is not possible, separation pay shall be given.