Lawyerly

GR No. 209418

2015-12-07

VELASCO JR., J.

In spite of the failure of WM MFG and Golden Rock to show that they complied with the procedural requirements of a valid termination under the Labor Code and its implementing rules, Dalag's dismissal cannot be deemed tainted with illegality, contrary to the CA's ruling,[87] for the circumstance merely renders the two companies solidarity liable to Dalag for nominal damages. Instructional on this point is the doctrine in JAKA Food Processing Corp. v. Pacot (JAKA).[88] There, the Court expounded that a dismissal for just cause under Art. 282 of the Labor Code implies that the employee concerned has committed, or is guilty of, some violation against the employer, i.e. the employee has committed some serious misconduct, is guilty of some fraud against the employer, or he has neglected his duties. Thus, it can be said that the employee himself initiated the dismissal process. However, the employer will still be held liable if procedural due process was not observed in the employee's dismissal. In such an event, the employer is directed to pay, in lieu of backwages, indemnity in the form of nominal damages.[89]

GR No. 192571

2014-04-22

ABBOTT LABORATORIES v. PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

In this relation, it bears mentioning that the performance standard contemplated by law should not, in all cases, be contained in a specialized system of feedbacks or evaluation. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that not all employers, such as simple businesses or small-scale enterprises, have a sophisticated form of human resource management, so much so that the adoption of technical indicators as utilized through "comment cards" or "appraisal" tools should not be treated as a prerequisite for every case of probationary engagement. In fact, even if a system of such kind is employed and the procedures for its implementation are not followed, once an employer determines that the probationary employee fails to meet the standards required for his regularization, the former is not precluded from dismissing the latter. The rule is that when a valid cause for termination exists, the procedural infirmity attending the termination only warrants the payment of nominal damages. This was the principle laid down in the landmark cases of Agabon v. NLRC[9] (Agabon) and Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot[10] (Jaka). In the assailed Decision, the Court actually extended the application of the Agabon and Jaka rulings to breaches of company procedure, notwithstanding the employer's compliance with the statutory requirements under the Labor Code.[11] Hence, although Abbott did not comply with its own termination procedure, its non-compliance thereof would not detract from the finding that there subsists a valid cause to terminate Alcaraz's employment. Abbott, however, was penalized for its contractual breach and thereby ordered to pay nominal damages.

GR No. 175855

2009-10-02

CELEBES JAPAN FOODS CORPORATION v. SUSAN YERMO

PERALTA, J.

Where an employee was terminated for cause, but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the employee is entitled to the payment of nominal damages pursuant to our ruling in Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission[11] and Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot.[12]

GR No. 166705

2009-07-28

MANTLE TRADING SERVICES v. NLRC

PUNO, C.J.

Again, we stress that though the Court is given the latitude to determine the amount of nominal damages to be awarded to an employee who was validly dismissed but whose due process rights were violated, a distinction should be made between a valid dismissal due to just causes under Article 282 of the Labor Code and those based on authorized causes, under Article 283. The two causes for a valid dismissal were differentiated in the case of JAKA Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot[24] where the Court held that: A dismissal for just cause under Article 282 implies that the employee concerned has committed, or is guilty of, some violation against the employer, i.e. the employee has committed some serious misconduct, is guilty of some fraud against the employer, or, as in Agabon, he has neglected his duties. Thus, it can be said that the employee himself initiated the dismissal process.

GR NO. 148132

2008-01-23

SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. REGINA M. ASTORGA

NACHURA, J.

However, we find the need to modify, by increasing, the indemnity awarded by the CA to Astorga, as a sanction on SMART for non-compliance with the one-month mandatory notice requirement, in light of our ruling in Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot,[43] viz.:[I]f the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282 but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction to be imposed upon him should be tempered because the dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act imputable to the employee, and (2) if the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Article 283 but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiffer because the dismissal process was initiated by the employer's exercise of his management prerogative.

GR NO. 168719

2006-02-22

PHILIPPINE CARPET EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS

CALLEJO, SR., J.

In Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission[71] and Jaka Food Processing Corp. v. Pacot,[72] the Court sustained the dismissals for just cause under Article 282 and for authorized cause under Article 283 of the Labor Code, respectively, despite non-compliance with the statutory requirement of notice and hearing. The grounds for dismissal in those cases, namely, neglect of duty and retrenchment, remained valid because the non-compliance with the notice and hearing requirement in the Labor Code did not undermine the validity of the grounds for the dismissals. The Court in those cases directed the employers to pay nominal damages to the employees dismissed for just or authorized cause for non-compliance with the procedural due process.

GR NO. 157133

2006-01-30

BUSINESS SERVICES OF FUTURE TODAY v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

In Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,[15] we ruled that where the dismissal is for an authorized cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual. However, the employer should indemnify the employee, in the form of nominal damages, for the violation of his right to statutory due process.[16] The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, taking into account the relevant circumstances.[17] In Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot,[18] we noted that the sanction should be stiffer because the dismissal process was initiated by the employer's exercise of its management prerogative.

GR NO. 165811

2005-12-14

DAP CORPORATION v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

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.... 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.[12] The above ruling was qualified in the case of Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot.[13] In Jaka, the employees were terminated because the corporation was financially distressed. However, the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement under Article 283 of the Labor Code when it failed to serve a written notice to the employees and the DOLE at least one month before the intended date of termination. Significantly, the Court distinguished the case from Agabon saying:The difference between Agabon and the instant case is that in the former, the dismissal was based on a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code while in the present case, respondents were dismissed due to retrenchment, which is one of the authorized causes under Article 283 of the same Code.

GR NO. 147756

2005-08-09

ROBERTO O. ARIOLA v. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION

CARPIO, J.

Thus, the requirements for retrenchment are: (1) it is undertaken to prevent losses, which are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual, and real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer;[27] (2) the employer serves written notice both to the employees and the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; and (3) the employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to one month pay or at least ½ month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. The Court later added the requirements that the employer must use fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees[28] and that the retrenchment must be undertaken in good faith.[29] Except for the written notice to the affected employees and the DOLE,[30] non-compliance with any of these requirements renders the retrenchment illegal.

GR NO. 149011

2005-06-28

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. PROSPERO A. ABALLA

CARPIO-MORALES, J.

Where the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Article 283 of the Labor Code but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiff as the dismissal process was initiated by the employer's exercise of his management prerogative, as opposed to a dismissal based on a just cause under Article 282 with the same procedural infirmity where the sanction to be imposed upon the employer should be tempered as the dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act imputable to the employee.[79]

	GR No. 209418 2015-12-07	W.M. MANUFACTURING v. RICHARD R. DALAG VELASCO JR., J.
In spite of the failure of WM MFG and Golden Rock to show that they complied with the procedural requirements of a valid termination under the Labor Code and its implementing rules, Dalag's dismissal cannot be deemed tainted with illegality, contrary to the CA's ruling,[87] for the circumstance merely renders the two companies solidarity liable to Dalag for nominal damages. Instructional on this point is the doctrine in JAKA Food Processing Corp. v. Pacot (JAKA).[88] There, the Court expounded that a dismissal for just cause under Art. 282 of the Labor Code implies that the employee concerned has committed, or is guilty of, some violation against the employer, i.e. the employee has committed some serious misconduct, is guilty of some fraud against the employer, or he has neglected his duties. Thus, it can be said that the employee himself initiated the dismissal process. However, the employer will still be held liable if procedural due process was not observed in the employee's dismissal. In such an event, the employer is directed to pay, in lieu of backwages, indemnity in the form of nominal damages.[89]
	GR No. 192571 2014-04-22	ABBOTT LABORATORIES v. PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In this relation, it bears mentioning that the performance standard contemplated by law should not, in all cases, be contained in a specialized system of feedbacks or evaluation. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that not all employers, such as simple businesses or small-scale enterprises, have a sophisticated form of human resource management, so much so that the adoption of technical indicators as utilized through "comment cards" or "appraisal" tools should not be treated as a prerequisite for every case of probationary engagement. In fact, even if a system of such kind is employed and the procedures for its implementation are not followed, once an employer determines that the probationary employee fails to meet the standards required for his regularization, the former is not precluded from dismissing the latter. The rule is that when a valid cause for termination exists, the procedural infirmity attending the termination only warrants the payment of nominal damages. This was the principle laid down in the landmark cases of Agabon v. NLRC[9] (Agabon) and Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot[10] (Jaka). In the assailed Decision, the Court actually extended the application of the Agabon and Jaka rulings to breaches of company procedure, notwithstanding the employer's compliance with the statutory requirements under the Labor Code.[11] Hence, although Abbott did not comply with its own termination procedure, its non-compliance thereof would not detract from the finding that there subsists a valid cause to terminate Alcaraz's employment. Abbott, however, was penalized for its contractual breach and thereby ordered to pay nominal damages.
	GR No. 175855 2009-10-02	CELEBES JAPAN FOODS CORPORATION v. SUSAN YERMO PERALTA, J.
Where an employee was terminated for cause, but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the employee is entitled to the payment of nominal damages pursuant to our ruling in Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission[11] and Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot.[12]
	GR No. 166705 2009-07-28	MANTLE TRADING SERVICES v. NLRC PUNO, C.J.
Again, we stress that though the Court is given the latitude to determine the amount of nominal damages to be awarded to an employee who was validly dismissed but whose due process rights were violated, a distinction should be made between a valid dismissal due to just causes under Article 282 of the Labor Code and those based on authorized causes, under Article 283. The two causes for a valid dismissal were differentiated in the case of JAKA Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot[24] where the Court held that: A dismissal for just cause under Article 282 implies that the employee concerned has committed, or is guilty of, some violation against the employer, i.e. the employee has committed some serious misconduct, is guilty of some fraud against the employer, or, as in Agabon, he has neglected his duties. Thus, it can be said that the employee himself initiated the dismissal process.
	GR NO. 148132 2008-01-23	SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. REGINA M. ASTORGA NACHURA, J.
However, we find the need to modify, by increasing, the indemnity awarded by the CA to Astorga, as a sanction on SMART for non-compliance with the one-month mandatory notice requirement, in light of our ruling in Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot,[43] viz.:[I]f the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282 but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction to be imposed upon him should be tempered because the dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act imputable to the employee, and (2) if the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Article 283 but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiffer because the dismissal process was initiated by the employer's exercise of his management prerogative.
	GR NO. 168719 2006-02-22	PHILIPPINE CARPET EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS CALLEJO, SR., J.
In Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission[71] and Jaka Food Processing Corp. v. Pacot,[72] the Court sustained the dismissals for just cause under Article 282 and for authorized cause under Article 283 of the Labor Code, respectively, despite non-compliance with the statutory requirement of notice and hearing. The grounds for dismissal in those cases, namely, neglect of duty and retrenchment, remained valid because the non-compliance with the notice and hearing requirement in the Labor Code did not undermine the validity of the grounds for the dismissals. The Court in those cases directed the employers to pay nominal damages to the employees dismissed for just or authorized cause for non-compliance with the procedural due process.
	GR NO. 157133 2006-01-30	BUSINESS SERVICES OF FUTURE TODAY v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
In Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,[15] we ruled that where the dismissal is for an authorized cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual. However, the employer should indemnify the employee, in the form of nominal damages, for the violation of his right to statutory due process.[16] The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, taking into account the relevant circumstances.[17] In Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot,[18] we noted that the sanction should be stiffer because the dismissal process was initiated by the employer's exercise of its management prerogative.
	GR NO. 165811 2005-12-14	DAP CORPORATION v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
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.... 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.[12] The above ruling was qualified in the case of Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot.[13] In Jaka, the employees were terminated because the corporation was financially distressed. However, the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement under Article 283 of the Labor Code when it failed to serve a written notice to the employees and the DOLE at least one month before the intended date of termination. Significantly, the Court distinguished the case from Agabon saying:The difference between Agabon and the instant case is that in the former, the dismissal was based on a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code while in the present case, respondents were dismissed due to retrenchment, which is one of the authorized causes under Article 283 of the same Code.
	GR NO. 147756 2005-08-09	ROBERTO O. ARIOLA v. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
Thus, the requirements for retrenchment are: (1) it is undertaken to prevent losses, which are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual, and real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer;[27] (2) the employer serves written notice both to the employees and the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; and (3) the employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to one month pay or at least ½ month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. The Court later added the requirements that the employer must use fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees[28] and that the retrenchment must be undertaken in good faith.[29] Except for the written notice to the affected employees and the DOLE,[30] non-compliance with any of these requirements renders the retrenchment illegal.
	GR NO. 149011 2005-06-28	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. PROSPERO A. ABALLA CARPIO-MORALES, J.
Where the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Article 283 of the Labor Code but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiff as the dismissal process was initiated by the employer's exercise of his management prerogative, as opposed to a dismissal based on a just cause under Article 282 with the same procedural infirmity where the sanction to be imposed upon the employer should be tempered as the dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act imputable to the employee.[79]

JAKA FOOD PROCESSING CORPORATION v. DARWIN PACOT