Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission, GR 158693, 17 November 2004, En Banc, Ynares-Santiago [J]

 
 Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission, GR 158693, 17 November 2004, En Banc, Ynares-Santiago [J] 

​FACTS:
 
Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. (RHI Inc.) is engaged in the business of selling and installing ornamental and construction materials. It employed Virgilio and Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice installers on January 2, 1992 until February 23, 1999 when they were dismissed for abandonment of work.
 
Virgilio and Jenny then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of money claims. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on December 28, 1999 declaring the dismissals illegal and it ordered RHI Inc. to pay the monetary claims.
 
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter because it found that the petitioners had abandoned their work, and were not entitled to backwages and separation pay. The other money claims awarded by the Labor Arbiter were also denied for lack of evidence.
 
The NLRC denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Agabon’s thus they filed a petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA ruled that the dismissal of the petitioners was not illegal because they had abandoned their employment but it ordered the payment of money claims.
 
ISSUE/S: 
 
Whether or Not the Riviera Home Improvements Inc. should be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process?
 
RULING:
 
YES, Rivera Home Improvements Inc. should be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process.
 
Due process under the Labor Code, like Constitutional due process, has two aspects: substantive, i.e., the valid and authorized causes of employment termination under the Labor Code; and procedural, i.e., the manner of dismissal. Procedural due process requirements for dismissal are found in the Implementing Rules of P.D. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines in Book VI, Rule I, Sec. 2, as amended by Department Order Nos. 9 and 10. Breaches of these due process requirements violate the Labor Code. Therefore statutory due process should be differentiated from failure to comply with constitutional due process.
Constitutional due process protects the individual from the government and assures him of his rights in criminal, civil or administrative proceedings; while statutory due process found in the Labor Code and Implementing Rules protects employees from being unjustly terminated without just cause after notice and hearing. Procedurally, (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282, the employer must give the employee two written notices and a hearing or opportunity to be heard if requested by the employee before terminating the employment: a notice specifying the grounds for which dismissal is sought a hearing or an opportunity to be heard and after hearing or opportunity to be heard, a notice of the decision to dismiss; and (2) if the dismissal is based on authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284, the employer must give the employee and the Department of Labor and Employment written notices 30 days prior to the effectivity of his separation.
From the foregoing rules four possible situations may be derived: (1) the dismissal is for a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code, for an authorized cause under Article 283, or for health reasons under Article 284, and due process was observed; (2) the dismissal is without just or authorized cause but due process was observed; (3) the dismissal is without just or authorized cause and there was no due process; and (4) the dismissal is for just or authorized cause but due process was not observed.Private respondent, however, did not follow the notice requirements and instead argued that sending notices to the last known addresses would have been useless because they did not reside there anymore. Unfortunately for the private respondent, this is not a valid excuse because the law mandates the twin notice requirements to the employee's last known address. Thus, it should be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process.
As enunciated by this Court in Viernes v. National Labor Relations Commissions, an employer is liable to pay indemnity in the form of nominal damages to an employee who has been dismissed if, in effecting such dismissal, the employer fails to comply with the requirements of due process
The violation of the petitioners' right to statutory due process by the private respondent warrants the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages. The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances. Considering the prevailing circumstances in the case at bar, we deem it proper to fix it at P30,000.00. We believe this form of damages would serve to deter employers from future violations of the statutory due process rights of employees. At the very least, it provides a vindication or recognition of this fundamental right granted to the latter under the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules.