Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JENNY M. AGABON v. NLRC

This case has been cited 104 times or more.

	GR NO. 165811 2005-12-14	DAP CORPORATION v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Furthermore, the validity of a termination can exist independently of the procedural infirmity in the dismissal. This is not the first time where the Court upheld the dismissal but held the employer liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements. In Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,[11] we found that the dismissal of the employees therein as valid and for a just cause because abandonment was firmly established. Nonetheless, the employer was held liable because it was proven that the twin requirements of notice and hearing were not followed.
	GR NO. 167136 2005-12-14	DURBAN APARTMENTS CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS UNDER TRADE NAME v. MIGUEL GERALDITO R. CATACUTAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
While 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, it 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.[22] The law protecting the rights of the laborer authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer.[23]
	GR No. 165268 2005-11-08	CHALLENGE SOCKS CORPORATION v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, 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 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.[27]
	GR NO. 165282 2005-10-05	ELECTRO SYSTEM INDUSTRIES CORPORATION v. NLRC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
However, petitioner should not be made to pay private respondent's backwages. In Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,[13] 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 Central Luzon Conference Corporation of Seventh Day Adventist Church, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[14] modified the decision of the Court of Appeals by awarding P30,000.00 to an employee who was dismissed for just cause but was not afforded due process. As explained by the Court: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 (Savellano v. Northwest Airlines, G.R. No. 151783, 8 July 2003, 405 SCRA 416). 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.
	GR NO. 163099 2005-10-04	AMADEO FISHING CORPORATION v. ROMEO NIERRA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The Serrano doctrine,[41] which awarded full backwages to "ineffectual dismissal cases" where an employee dismissed for cause was denied due process, has been abandoned by the Court's ruling in Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission.[42] In that case, the Court held 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, absent sufficient evidence to support an award for actual or moral damages.[43] The Court, likewise, stated in Agabon that it was abandoning the doctrine laid down in Serrano, in this wise:After carefully analyzing the consequences of the divergent doctrines in the law on employment termination, we believe that, in cases involving dismissal 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.[44]
	GR NO. 147756 2005-08-09	ROBERTO O. ARIOLA v. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
In Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission[34] and Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot,[35] 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 the dismissals 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. Indeed, to invalidate a dismissal merely because of a procedural defect creates absurdity and runs counter to public interest. We explained in Agabon:The unfairness of declaring illegal or ineffectual dismissals for valid or authorized causes but not complying with statutory due process may have far-reaching consequences.
	GR NO. 151966 2005-08-08	JPL MARKETING PROMOTIONS v. CA TINGA, J.
In addition, the doctrine enunciated in the case of Serrano[37] cited by private respondents has already been abandoned by our ruling in Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission.[38] There we ruled that an employer is liable to pay indemnity in the form of nominal damages to a dismissed employee if, in effecting such dismissal, the employer failed to comply with the requirements of due process. However, private respondents are not entitled to the payment of damages considering that there was no violation of due process in this case. JPL's memo dated 13 August 1996 to private respondents is not a notice of termination, but a mere note informing private respondents of the termination of CMC's contract and their re-assignment to other clients. The thirty (30)-day notice rule does not apply.
	GR No. 151966 2005-07-08	JPL MARKETING PROMOTIONS v. CA TINGA, J.
In addition, the doctrine enunciated in the case of Serrano[37] cited by private respondents has already been abandoned by our ruling in Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission.[38] There we ruled that an employer is liable to pay indemnity in the form of nominal damages to a dismissed employee if, in effecting such dismissal, the employer failed to comply with the requirements of due process. However, private respondents are not entitled to the payment of damages considering that there was no violation of due process in this case. JPL's memo dated 13 August 1996 to private respondents is not a notice of termination, but a mere note informing private respondents of the termination of CMC's contract and their re-assignment to other clients. The thirty (30)-day notice rule does not apply.
	GR NO. 157757 2005-06-28	ELSIE T. LAVADOR v. “J” MARKETING CORPORATION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
On this point, our ruling in Agabon vs. National Labor Relations Commission,[5] is relevant, thus:"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; x x x.
	GR NO. 157603 2005-06-23	NEECO II v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To effectuate a valid dismissal of an employee, the law requires not only the existence of a just and valid cause but also enjoins the employer to give the employee the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.[24] Procedurally, if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code, the employer must give the employee two written notices and a hearing or opportunity to be heard is 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. [25]
	GR NO. 165586 2005-06-15	CORNELIO C. CRUZ v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We have long established that the twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process, and neither of those elements can be eliminated without running afoul of the constitutional guaranty.[33] These requisites cannot be replaced as they are not mere technicalities, but requirements of due process to which every employee is entitled to ensure that the employer's prerogative to dismiss is not exercised arbitrarily.[34] Pursuant to the case of Agabon v. NLRC, the prevailing doctrine is that where the dismissal is for just cause, the lack of statutory due process does not nullify the dismissal or render it illegal. The employer, however, should indemnify the employee in the form of nominal damages to vindicate or recognize the employee's right that was violated. The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances.[35] In this case, the amount of P20,000.00 is sufficient for the purpose.
	GR NO. 154315 2005-05-09	PHILIPPINE PIZZA v. KIM M. BUNGABONG QUISUMBING, J.
In Agabon v. NLRC,[32] we said that when the dismissal was for cause, the lack of statutory due process will not nullify the dismissal or render it illegal or ineffectual. But the violation of herein respondent's right to statutory due process by petitioners clearly warrants the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages.
	GR NO. 155264 2005-05-06	FLOREN HOTEL v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
As to the third issue, Article 279 of the Labor Code gives to Calimlim and Rico the right to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges or separation pay in case reinstatement is no longer possible, and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits. It was thus error for the Court of Appeals to affirm the NLRC decision to award Calimlim and Rico indemnity in addition to the measure of damages provided in Article 279. The award of indemnity is a penalty awarded only when the dismissal was for just or authorized cause but where the twin-notice requirement was not observed.[44]
	GR NO. 147002 2005-04-15	PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
However, the employer's failure to comply with the one month notice requirement prior to retrenchment does not render the termination illegal; it merely renders the same defective, entitling the dismissed employee to payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages.[35] Based on prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of indemnity is pegged at P30,000.00.[36]
	GR NO. 149371 2005-04-13	ABERDEEN COURT v. MATEO C. AGUSTIN JR. AZCUNA, J.
Nevertheless, it appears that petitioners violated due process in the dismissal of respondent, by not affording him the required notice. As this Court held in Agabon, et al. v. NLRC, et al.,[19] an employer who dismisses an employee for just cause but does so without notice, is liable for nominal damages in the amount of P30,000.
	GR NO. 151378 2005-03-28	JAKA FOOD PROCESSING CORPORATION v. DARWIN PACOT GARCIA, J.
This, certainly, is not a case of first impression. In the very recent case of Agabon vs. NLRC,[8] we had the opportunity to resolve a similar question. Therein, we found that the employees committed a grave offense, i.e., abandonment, which is a form of a neglect of duty which, in turn, is one of the just causes enumerated under Article 282 of the Labor Code. In said case, we upheld the validity of the dismissal despite non-compliance with the notice requirement of the Labor Code. However, we required the employer to pay the dismissed employees the amount of P30,000.00, representing nominal damages for non-compliance with statutory due process, thus: "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 vs. 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. 146780 2005-03-11	DENNIS A. CHUA v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
The matter has been laid to rest in the recent case of Agabon v. NLRC,[28] where the Court held that a violation of an employee's statutory right to two notices prior to the termination of his employment for a just cause entitles him to nominal damages of P30,000.00, absent sufficient evidence to support an award for actual or moral damages.
	GR NO. 149349 2005-03-11	GLAXO WELLCOME PHILIPPINES v. NAGKAKAISANG EMPLEYADO NG WELLCOME-DFA PANGANIBAN, J.
Recently in Agabon v. NLRC,[19] this Court effectively reverted to Wenphil and ruled that a dismissal due to abandonment -- a just cause -- was not illegal or ineffectual, even if done without due process; but that the employer should indemnify the employee with "nominal damages for non-compliance with statutory due process."
	GR NO. 154308 2005-03-10	BERNARDINO A. CAINGAT v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
In Agabon v. NLRC,[32] we said that if the dismissal was for cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal or ineffectual.[33] But the violation of the petitioner's right to statutory due process by respondents 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.[34] Accordingly, we deem the amount of P30,000 sufficient as a vindication of the petitioner's statutory right to notice, pursuant to current jurisprudence.
	GR NO. 155389 2005-02-28	DMA SHIPPING PHILIPPINES v. HENRY CABILLAR CALLEJO, SR., J.
The respondent was not furnished with any written notice of any charges against him. Nor was there any formal investigation of the charges. Neither was the respondent furnished with a copy of the written notice of the penalty imposed on him. He was merely verbally told, when the vessel arrived in Singapore, on September 1, 1994, that he had been dismissed for joining the strike of the crew members. For such violation, the petitioners are liable to the respondent for moral damages or for indemnity of P30,000.00, if the respondent fails to prove such moral damages.[12] In this case, the respondent failed to prove moral damages. Hence, he is entitled to indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00.[13]
	GR NO. 149090 2005-02-11	BENEDICTO A. CAJUCOM VII v. TPI PHILIPPINES CEMENT CORPORATION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Records show that on December 3, 1998, respondents sent petitioner and the DOLE separate notices of retrenchment effective December 30, 1998. Following the provision of Article 283, these notices should have been served one month before, or on November 30, 1998. Clearly, respondents failed to comply with the one-month notice requirement. On this point, our ruling in Agabon vs. National Labor Relations Commission,[16] is relevant, thus:"Procedurally, x x x (2) if the dismissal is based on authorized causes under Articles 283 and 294, 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. 147427 2005-02-07	ADAM GARCIA v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
Moreover, even a cursory reading of the NLRC decision will show that the fallo thereof is inconsistent with its body. While the body of the decision mentioned that the petitioner should be awarded indemnity for failure of private respondent Legaspi Oil to comply with the two-notice statutory requirement prior to dismissing the petitioner, no such award was included in the fallo thereof. Apropos to the matter is the decision of the Court in Agabon v. NLRC,[45] which became final and executory on December 13, 2004.
	GR NO. 143384 2005-02-04	DR. ERNESTO I. MAQUILING v. PHILIPPINE TUBERCULOSIS SOCIETY TINGA, J.
Dr. Maquiling invokes our ruling in Serrano as basis for appropriate relief. The Serrano ruling awarded full backwages and separation pay to the employee who was dismissed for just cause but without the observance of the procedural due process requirement. However, in Agabon v. NLRC,[38] this Court modified the Serrano ruling and awarded nominal damages in the amount of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) including holiday pay, service incentive leave and thirteenth month pay to the petitioners in the said case. This case clarified the criticisms and answered the questions created by the Serrano ruling.