AGABON VS. NLRC / Riviera Home - GR No.

158693 Case Digest

FACTS:

Petitioners were employed by Riviera Home as gypsum board and cornice installers from January 1992 to February 23, 1999
when they were dismissed for abandonment of work. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and was decided in their
favor by the Labor Arbiter. Riviera appealed to the NLRC contending just cause for the dismissal because of petitioners
abandonment of work. NLRC ruled there was just cause and petitioners were not entitled to backwages and separation pay. The
CA in turn ruled that the dismissal was not illegal because they have abandoned their work but ordered the payment of money
claims.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed.

RULING:

To dismiss an employee, the law required not only the existence of a just and valid cause but also enjoins the employer to give
the employee the right to be heard and to defend himself. Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee
to resume his employment. For a valid finding or abandonment, two factors are considered: failure to report for work without a
valid reason; and, a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship with the second as the more determinative factor
which is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the employees has no more intention to work.

Where the employer had a valid reason to dismiss an employee but did not follow the due process requirement, the dismissal
may be upheld but the employer will be penalized to pay an indemnity to the employee. This became known as the Wenphil
Doctrine of the Belated Due process Rule.

Art. 279 means that the termination is illegal if it is not for any of the justifiable or authorized by law. Where the dismissal is for
a just cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal but the employer should indemnify the employee
for the violation of his statutory rights. The indemnity should be stiffer to discourage the abhorrent practice of dismiss now,
pay later which we sought to deter in Serrano ruling. The violation of employees rights warrants the payment of nominal
damages.
LABOR REL: WENPHIL SERRANO AGABON DOCTRINE Distinguished

THE DISMISSAL IS FOR A JUST OR AUTHORIZED CAUSE BUT DUE PROCESS WAS NOT OBSERVED.

Due Process to be Observed by The Employer - For termination of the employment based on the any of the just causes for
termination, the requirements of due process that an employer must comply with are: (TWIN NOTICES)

Written notice should be served to the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination and giving the said employee
reasonable opportunity within which to explain;

A hearing or conference should be held 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 and present the evidence presented against
him;

A written notice of termination, if termination is the decision of the employer, should be served on the employee indicating that
upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination.

For termination of employment based on authorized causes, the requirements of due process shall be deemed complied with
upon service of a written notice to the employee and the appropriate Regional office of the Department of Labor and
employment at least thirty days before the effectivity of the termination specifying the grounds for termination.

NOTE:

Under the so-called WENPHIL DOCTRINE if the services of the employee was terminated due to a just or authorized cause but
the affected employees right to due process has been violated, the dismissal is legal but the employee is entitled to damages by
way of indemnification for the violation of the right.

SERRANO vs. ISETANN et. al. abandoned the WENPHIL DOCTRINE and ruled that if the employee is dismissed under just or
authorized cause but the affected employees right to due process has been violated, his dismissal becomes ineffectual.
Therefore, the employee is entitled to backwages from the time he was dismissed until the determination of the justness of the
cause of the dismissal.

AGABON vs. NLRC (Nov. 17, 2004) abandoned the Serrano doctrine and REINSTATED THE WENPHIL DOCTRINE. The sanctions,
however must be stiffer than that imposed in Wenphil.

Synopsis on the developments in the law.

In the last couple of decades, the Supreme Court has grappled with the legal effect and the corresponding sanction in cases
where there exists a just and valid ground to justify the dismissal but the employer fails to comply with the due process
requirement of the law. Prior to the promulgation in 1989 of Wenphil v. NLRC, [170 SCRA 69, February 8, 1989], the prevailing
doctrine held that dismissing employees without giving them proper notices and an opportunity to be heard was illegal and that,
as a consequence thereof, they were entitled to reinstatement plus full backwages. Wenphil abandoned this jurisprudence and
ruled that if the dismissal was for a just or an authorized cause but done without due process, the termination was valid but the
employer should be sanctioned with the payment of indemnity ranging from P1,000.00 to P10,000.00.

In 2000, the Supreme Court promulgated Serrano v. NLRC, [G.R. No. 117040, January 27, 2000], which modified Wenphil. It
considered such termination ineffectual (not illegal) and sanctioned the employer with payment of full backwages plus nominal
and moral damages, if warranted by the evidence. In case the dismissal was for an authorized cause, separation pay in accordance
with Article 283 of the Labor Code should be awarded.

In 2004, the Supreme Court in Agabon v. NLRC, [G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004], abandoned Serrano and effectively
reverted to Wenphil (known also as the Belated Due Process Rule) and held that a dismissal due to abandonment - a just cause
- was not illegal or ineffectual, even if done without due process; but the employer should indemnify the employee with nominal
damages for non-compliance with statutory due process. (Glaxo Wellcome Phils., Inc. v. Nagkakaisang Empleyado ng Wellcome-
DFA, G.R. No. 149349, March 11, 2005).