Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JENNY M. AGABON v. NLRC

This case has been cited 104 times or more.

	GR No. 164804 2009-01-30	VIRGINIA A. SUGUE v. TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Indeed, the law imposes many obligations on the employer such as providing just compensation to workers, and observance of the procedural requirements of notice and hearing in the termination of employment. On the other hand, the law also recognizes the right of the employer to expect from its workers not only good performance, adequate work and diligence, but also good conduct and loyalty. The employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such persons whose continuance in the service will patently be inimical to his interests.[50] Triumph has adequately shown the existence of a just and valid cause in terminating the employment of Sugue and Valderrama, and has faithfully complied with the procedural requirements of due process for valid termination of employment.
	GR No. 158539 2009-01-15	INDUSTRIAL v. TOMAS TUGADE AZCUNA, J.
Nevertheless, this Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that petitioners failed to follow the requirements of notices after respondents abandoned their positions. Respondents are therefore entitled to an additional award of P30,000 each in accordance with the doctrine in the Agabon[4] case.
	GR No. 168537 2008-12-11	DAMIAN AKLAN v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
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.[25]While labor should be protected at all times, this protection must not be at the expense of capital.
	GR No. 167622 2008-11-07	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. VELASCO JR., J.
For breach of the due process requirements, Manulife is liable to Tongko in the amount of PhP 30,000 as indemnity in the form of nominal damages.[31]
	GR No. 174224 2008-10-17	MARCIAL APARECE v. J. MARKETING CORPORATION TINGA, J.
In Agabon v. NLRC,[21] the Court ruled that where the dismissal is for a just cause, as in this case, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal or ineffectual. Neither should the employer be required to pay the employee back wages. However, the employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory right in the form of nominal damages the amount of which is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances.[22]
	GR No. 171790 2008-10-17	BRENDO D. MERIN v. NLRC TINGA, J.
The manner of his dismissal, however, is another matter. Records show that petitioner's employer failed to observe the procedure prescribed in the POEA Standard Employment Contract, which requires for a written notice of the charges and the time and place for a formal investigation, a hearing of the charges, and a written notice of the penalty. Petitioner was repatriated without the requisite notices and hearing.[31] Such failure, however, does not affect the propriety of his dismissal. In Agabon v. NLRC,[32] we ruled that when the dismissal is for just cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual.However, it warrants the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages. The award of P50,000.00 by the Court of Appeals, however, is excessive, since, conformably with the Agabon case, the proper amount for nominal damages would be of P30,000.00.
	GR No. 172306 2008-09-29	MICHAEL V. SANTOS v. SHING HUNG PLASTICS CARPIO MORALES, J.
His Motion for Reconsideration[18] having been denied[19] by the NLRC by Resolution of May 18, 2005, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari[20] before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC Resolutions of August 20, 2004 and May 18, 2005 but increased the amount of indemnity to P30,000,[21] following Agabon v. NLRC[22] awarding P30,000 nominal damages to an employee who is dismissed for just cause but without compliance with due process requirements.[23]
	GR No. 164850 2008-09-25	REYNALDO Q. AGULLANO v. CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING NACHURA, J.
Given these findings, we find apropos our ruling in Agabon v. NLRC,[16] in which this Court made the following pronouncement:Where the dismissal is for a just cause, as in the instant case, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal or render it illegal, or ineffectual. However, the employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory rights x x x. The indemnity to be imposed should be stiffer to discourage the abhorrent practice of "dismiss now, pay later" x x x.
	GR No. 147633 2008-07-28	ALDEGUER v. HONEYLINE TOMBOC CARPIO MORALES, J.
Petitioner having failed to comply with the first notice requirement, respondent is, following Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,[53] entitled to indemnity in the form of nominal damages in the amount of P30,000.
	GR No. 170287 2008-02-14	ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB v. NLRC VELASCO JR., J.
Whether the case of Agabon vs. NLRC[17] should be applied to this case.
	GR No. 153510 2008-02-13	R.B. MICHAEL PRESS and ANNALENE REYES ESCOBIA v. NICASIO C. GALIT VELASCO JR., J.
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.[15] Under the twin notice requirement, the employees must be given two (2) notices before his employment could be terminated: (1) a first notice to apprise the employees of their fault, and (2) a second notice to communicate to the employees that their employment is being terminated. Not to be taken lightly of course is the hearing or opportunity for the employee to defend himself personally or by counsel of his choice.
	GR No. 163419 2008-02-13	TSPIC CORPORATION v. TSPIC EMPLOYEES UNION VELASCO JR., J.
As a last word, it should be reiterated that though it is the state's responsibility to afford protection to labor, this policy should not be used as an instrument to oppress management and capital.[29] In resolving disputes between labor and capital, fairness and justice should always prevail. We ruled in Norkis Union v. Norkis Trading that in the resolution of labor cases, we have always been guided by the State policy enshrined in the Constitution: social justice and protection of the working class. Social justice does not, however, mandate that every dispute should be automatically decided in favor of labor. In any case, justice is to be granted to the deserving and dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable law and doctrine.[30]
	GR No. 159625 2008-01-31	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES v. VALENTINA GARCIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner argues that since respondent was terminated on the ground of abandonment of work, the sending of several notices to respondent's last known address informing her of the charges against her and giving her an opportunity to explain her side was sufficient compliance with due process; that it cannot be held liable for violation of due process when the notices were returned unserved due to causes solely attributable to the respondent herself; that the Serrano doctrine is inapplicable since it was superseded by Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission[12] which ruled that a violation of an employee's statutory right to two notices prior to the termination of employment for just cause entitles such dismissed employee to nominal damages only, not payment of full backwages.
	GR No. 127980 2007-12-19	DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY v. CA REYES, R.T., J.
The Due Process Clause in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution embodies a system of rights based on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our entire history.[64] The constitutional behest that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law is solemn and inflexible.[65]
	GR Nos. 142732-33 2007-12-04	MARILOU S. GENUINO v. NLRC VELASCO JR., 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. 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.[41]
	GR No. 145587 2007-10-26	EDI-STAFFBUILDERS INTERNATIONAL v. NLRC VELASCO JR., J.
In Agabon v. NLRC,[54] this Court held that: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.
	GR NO. 172913 2007-08-09	DANILO OGALISCO v. HOLY TRINITY COLLEGE OF GENERAL SANTOS CITY VELASCO, JR., J.
However, in view of the recent jurisprudential development enunciated in Agabon v. NLRC, where it was held that the proper indemnity for the violation of an employee's right to statutory due process is nominal damages in the amount of PhP 30,000,[10] this Court deems it proper to modify the indemnity award from PhP 17,460 to PhP 30,000 in favor of petitioner.
	GR NO. 152636 2007-08-08	CRISLYNDON T. SADAGNOT v. REINIER PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CARPIO, J.
In Agabon v. NLRC,[21] we ruled that if the dismissal is for a just cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal or ineffectual. The violation of petitioner's right to due process only warrants the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages, the amount of which is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, taking into consideration the relevant circumstances.[22] However, we agree with petitioner that the amount of indemnity awarded to him is insufficient. Considering the circumstances in this case and in line with prevailing jurisprudence, we deem it proper to increase the amount of nominal damages from P10,000 to P30,000.[23]
	GR NO. 156964 2007-07-04	MAGRO PLACEMENT v. CRESENCIANO E. HERNANDEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Serrano doctrine[28] which awarded full backwages in "ineffectual dismissal cases" where an employee dismissed for cause was denied due process, which was applied by the CA, has been abandoned by the Court's ruling in Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission.[29] In that case, the Court held that if the dismissal was for a cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal or ineffectual. However, the employer's violation of the employee's right to statutory due process warrants the payment of indemnity[30] 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.[31] The Court ruled in said Agabon case that it was abandoning the Serrano doctrine in this wise:After carefully analyzing the consequences of the divergent doctrines in the law on employment termination, we believe that in cases involving dismissals for cause but without observance of the twin requirements of notice and hearing, the better rule is to abandon the Serrano doctrine and to follow Wenphil by holding that the dismissal was for just cause but imposing sanctions on the employer. Such sanctions, however, must be stiffer than that imposed in Wenphil. By doing so, this Court would be able to achieve a fair result by dispensing justice not just to employees, but to employers as well.[32]
	GR NO. 166208 2007-06-29	KING OF KINGS TRANSPORT v. SANTIAGO O. MAMAC VELASCO, JR., J.
Due process under the Labor Code involves two aspects: first, substantive the valid and authorized causes of termination of employment under the Labor Code; and second, procedural the manner of dismissal.[12] In the present case, the CA affirmed the findings of the labor arbiter and the NLRC that the termination of employment of respondent was based on a "just cause." This ruling is not at issue in this case. The question to be determined is whether the procedural requirements were complied with.
	GR NO. 169600 2007-06-26	MARIVAL TRADING v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
After a finding of illegal dismissal herein, we apply the foregoing provision entitling the employee to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time the compensation was not paid up to the time of his reinstatement. [38]
	GR NO. 164198 2007-06-15	ALAY SA KAPATID INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION v. ROMULO DOMINGUEZ QUISUMBING, J.
In Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,[13] we said that where the dismissal is for a just cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual. The employer should indemnify the employee, however, in the form of nominal damages, for the violation of his right to statutory due process.[14] The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, taking into account the relevant circumstances.[15] In this case, we deem it proper to fix it at P30,000.
	GR NO. 164582 2007-03-28	PILAR ESPINA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The law imposes many obligations on the employer such as providing just compensation to workers, observance of the procedural requirements of notice and hearing in the termination of employment. On the other hand, the law recognizes the right of the employer to expect from its workers not only good performance, adequate work and diligence, but also good conduct and loyalty. The employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such persons whose continuance in the service will patently be inimical to his interest. [43]
	GR NOS. 170384-85 2007-03-09	LORNA DISING PUNZAL v. ETSI TECHNOLOGIES CARPIO MORALES, J.
Following Agabon, et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[55] the violation of petitioner's statutory due process right entitles her to an award of nominal damage, which this Court fixes at P30,000.[56]
	GR NO. 146762 2007-01-30	CULVER B. SUICO v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE NLRC COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN AFFIRMING IN TOTO THE LABOR ARBITER'S DECISION UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF RESPONDENT'S DISMISSAL ON THE ISSUE OF ALLEGED LACK OF DUE PROCESS, THE SAME BEING CONTRARY TO LAW AND ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE THAT FOR CERTIORARI TO SUCCEED ABUSE OF DISCRETION MUST SATISFACTORILY BE SHOWN TO BE "GRAVE", WHICH IS NOT SO IN THE CASE AT BAR.[51][sic] The petitions in G.R. No. 146762 and G.R. No. 153584 are partly meritorious in that the CA did not err in upholding the validity of the dismissal of Suico, Ceniza, Dacut, and Mariano but the PLDT should be ordered to pay said employees nominal damages pursuant to Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission.[52]
	GR NO. 158731 2007-01-25	IRENEO L. CAMUA v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
For unexplained absence to constitute abandonment, there must be a clear, deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to continue his employment, without any intention of returning.[21] For a valid finding of abandonment, these two factors should be present: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship, which is the more determinative factor and is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the employee has no more intention to work. Such intent must be shown by clear proof that it was deliberate and unjustified.[22]
	GR NO. 162447 2006-12-27	ANABELLE MUAJE-TUAZON v. WENPHIL CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
First, the law requires that the employee be given two written notices before terminating his employment, namely: (1) a notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him.[14]
	GR NO. 148021 2006-12-06	SIME DARBY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. NLRC TINGA, J.
Petitioners claim that the alleged failure of the company to notify them of their termination renders their dismissal illegal, and thus they should be reinstated and paid with full backwages or given separation pay, following the Court's ruling in Serrano v. Court of Appeals. The argument does not hold. The ruling in Serrano has already been superseded by the case of Agabon v. National Labor Relation Commission.[43] The Agabon enunciates the new doctrine that if the dismissal is for just cause but statutory due process was not observed, the dismissal should be upheld. While the procedural infirmity cannot be cured, it should not invalidate the dismissal. However, the employer should be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process.[44] But in any case, the issue of illegal dismissal had already been resolved by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, which both found that the company had an authorized cause and had complied with the requirements of due process when it dismissed petitioners.
	GR NO. 165757 2006-10-17	GALAXIE STEEL WORKERS UNION v. NLRC CARPIO-MORALES, J.
Nevertheless, the validity of termination of services can exist independently of the procedural infirmity in the dismissal. In Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,[18] the Court deemed it best to revisit the doctrine in Serrano,[19] which was cited by petitioners, in relation to Wenphil Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission.[20] After analyzing the consequences of the divergent doctrines on employment termination, the Court held that in cases involving dismissals for cause, but without observance of statutory due process, the better rule is to abandon the Serrano doctrine and to follow Wenphil by declaring that the dismissal was for cause but imposing sanctions on the employer. By so doing, dispensing justice not just to employees but to employers as well is achieved.[21]
	GR NO. 171703 2006-09-22	ACE PROMOTION v. REYNALDO URSABIA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,[24] it was held that where the dismissal is for a just cause, as in the instant case, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual. However, the employer should indemnify the employee for violation of his statutory rights. Thus, applying Agabon, the Court, in Electro System Industries Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission[25] awarded P30,000.00 to an employee who was dismissed for just cause but was not afforded due process. Conformably, respondent in the present case should be indemnified in the amount of P30,000.00 as nominal damages which we consider as appropriate under the circumstances.
	GR NO. 160769 2006-08-09	CITY TRUCKING v. ANTONIO BALAJADIA PUNO, J.
Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment.[11] It is one form of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the employer.[12] Mere absence does not equate to abandonment. To constitute abandonment, there must be a concurrence of: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason;[13] (2) a deliberate intent of the employee to leave his work permanently;[14] and (3) overt act/s from which it may be inferred that the employee had no more intention to resume his work.[15] This burden of proving that there was a deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning rests on the employer.[16]
	GR NO. 160769 2006-08-09	CITY TRUCKING v. ANTONIO BALAJADIA PUNO, J.
Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment.[11] It is one form of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the employer.[12] Mere absence does not equate to abandonment. To constitute abandonment, there must be a concurrence of: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason;[13] (2) a deliberate intent of the employee to leave his work permanently;[14] and (3) overt act/s from which it may be inferred that the employee had no more intention to resume his work.[15] This burden of proving that there was a deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning rests on the employer.[16]
	GR NO. 160769 2006-08-09	CITY TRUCKING v. ANTONIO BALAJADIA PUNO, J.
Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment.[11] It is one form of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the employer.[12] Mere absence does not equate to abandonment. To constitute abandonment, there must be a concurrence of: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason;[13] (2) a deliberate intent of the employee to leave his work permanently;[14] and (3) overt act/s from which it may be inferred that the employee had no more intention to resume his work.[15] This burden of proving that there was a deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning rests on the employer.[16]
	GR NO. 164376 2006-07-31	NLRC v. MA. BERNADETTE S. SALGARINO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the termination of employment, the employer must (a) give the employee a written notice specifying the ground or grounds of termination, giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side; (b) conduct a hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the employee so desires, is given the opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him; and (c) give the employee a written notice of termination indicating that upon due consideration of all circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination.[40]
	GR NO. 167813 2006-06-27	BENJAMIN L. SAROCAM v. INTERORIENT MARITIME ENT. CALLEJO, SR., J.
That I know that upon receipt of the above amount I waive all claims I may have for damage against the vessel's owners and her agents, insurers, charterers, operators [sic] underwriters, p.i. clube [sic], shipper and all other persons in interest therein or thereon, under all and all other countries.[30] From the document itself, the element of voluntariness in its execution is evident. Petitioner also appears to have fully understood the contents of the document he was signing, as the important provision thereof had been relayed to him in Filipino. Thus, the document also states: Na alam ko na pagkatanggap ko nang halagang ito ay pinawawalang bisa at iniuurong ko nang lahat [ng] aking interes, karapatan, at anumang reklamo o damyos laban sa barko, may-ari nito, mga ahente, seguro at lahat-lahat ng may kinalaman sa barkong ito maging dito sa Pilipinas o anumang bansa.[31] Likewise, the US$405.00 which he received in consideration of the quitclaim is a credible and reasonable amount. He was truly entitled thereto, no more and no less, given that he was sick for only less than a month or from November 15, 2000 to December 13, 2000. The same would not, therefore, invalidate the said quitclaim. As we held in Periquet v. National Labor Relations Commission:[32] Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. But where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily, with full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking.[33] As a final note, let it be emphasized that the constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be a sword to oppress employers. The commitment of this Court to the cause of labor does not prevent us from sustaining the employer when it is in the right.[34]
	GR NO. 167959 2006-04-19	FILIPINAS SYSTEMS 'FILSYSTEMS v. ERNESTO GATLABAYAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
Petitioners emphasize that when an employee is dismissed for a just and valid cause, but the twin requirements of notice and the opportunity to be heard are not met, the dismissal shall nevertheless be upheld, but the employer must be sanctioned for non-compliance with such due process requirements. Petitioners cite the Court's ruling in Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission.[19]
	GR NO. 152616 2006-03-31	PHILEMPLOY SERVICES v. ANITA RODRIGUEZ CARPIO, J.
In Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,[32] this Court held:Where the dismissal is for a just cause, as in the instant case, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual. However, the employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory rights, as ruled in Reta v. National Labor Relations Commission. The indemnity to be imposed should be stiffer to discourage the abhorrent practice of "dismiss now, pay later," which we sought to deter in the Serrano ruling. The sanction should be in the nature of indemnification or penalty and should depend on the facts of each case, taking into special consideration the gravity of the due process violation of the employer.
	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.