Sunteți pe pagina 1din 85

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 141608 October 4, 2002
ANFLO MANAGEMENT & INESTMENT CORP. !"#$or LIN%A F.
LAG%AMEO, petitioners,
vs.
RO%OLFO %. &OLANIO, respondent.
D ! I S I O N
CORONA, J.:
The instant petition assails "#$ the decision of the !ourt of %ppeals in !%&'.R.
SP No. ()*)+, dated %u,ust -, #***, .hich annulled and set aside the decision
of the National /abor Relations !o00ission "N/R!$ and "1$ the resolution of the
appellate court dated 2anuar3 #4, 1))) den3in, petitioner5s 0otion for
reconsideration.
The ,enerative facts of the case are chronicled as follo.s6
Respondent Rodolfo 7olanio .as e0plo3ed as co0pan3 driver b3 petitioner
corporation in #**1 and .as assi,ned to the residence of its senior vice&
president /inda 8. /a,da0eo at Das0ari9as Villa,e, Ma:ati !it3. He .as 0ainl3
tas:ed to transport /inda5s dau,hter, Re,ina 8loirendo /a,da0eo, to and fro0
her .or: at S:3 !able in ;ue<on !it3. On Nove0ber =, #**4, respondent ,ot
involved in a heated ar,u0ent .ith Re,ina .hile the3 .ere on their .a3 ho0e,
ste00in, fro0 respondent5s failure to follo. Re,ina5s instructions re,ardin, road
directions. >pon arrival at Das0ari9as Villa,e, Re,ina ordered respondent to bu3
an oint0ent fro0 a dru, store. ?hen he returned, he .as confronted b3 /inda
.ho accused hi0 of verball3 abusin, her dau,hter. Respondent tried to e@plain
that he did not sa3 an3thin, a,ainst petitioner5s dau,hter but /inda .ould not
,ive hi0 a chance and instead shouted the .ords A3ou5re firedA at hi0. He .as
then ordered to return his co0pan3 and Das0ari9as Villa,e identification cards
as .ell as his unifor0s. He .as not allo.ed to report for .or: an30ore. Thus, he
filed a co0plaint for ille,al dis0issal on Nove0ber 4, #**4 .ith a pra3er for
reinstate0ent and pa30ent of 0onetar3 clai0s.
In their ans.er, petitioners denied dis0issin, respondent fro0 e0plo30ent. The3
0aintained that respondent abandoned his .or: .hen he failed to report for .or:
on Nove0ber 4, #**4, the da3 after his altercation .ith /inda /a,da0eo5s
dau,hter. In fact, on Nove0ber (, #**4, the co0pan35s personnel 0ana,er even
visited respondent at his residence and assured hi0 that he had not been
dis0issed fro0 .or: but .as 0erel3 reassi,ned to the co0pan35s pool of drivers.
Ho.ever, respondent still refused to report bac: for .or:. This pro0pted
petitioners to send, on Nove0ber #), #**4, a notice of offense upon respondent
but the latter si0pl3 i,nored the sa0e.
On Dece0ber 1+, #**(, labor arbiter 2ovencio Ma3or, 2r. dis0issed the
co0plaint for ille,al dis0issal on the ,round that herein respondent had
abandoned his .or:.
Respondent appealed to the N/R! .hich, on 8ebruar3 1(, #**B, set aside the
decision of the labor arbiter. It directed respondent 7olanio to report for .or: and
ordered petitioners to accept hi0 bac: as co0pan3 diver. The N/R! held that
respondent did not abandon his .or: nor .as he ille,all3 dis0issed b3
petitioners.
%,,rieved b3 the decision of the N/R!, respondent filed a petition for certiorari
.ith the !ourt of %ppeals .hich rendered the assailed decision findin, that
respondent .as ille,all3 dis0issed. In so rulin,, the appellate court reasoned out
that6
A@ @ @ The dis0issal of petitioner on Nove0ber =, #**4 is too vivid to be
understood fro0 the actuations of respondent /inda /a,da0eo, .ho at that ti0e
.as holdin, the position of Senior Vice&President and to .ho0 petitioner .as
particularl3 assi,ned as fa0il3Cresidential driver. Havin, been told D3ou5re fired5
and ordered to return his identification cards and unifor0s, there can be no other
interpretation thereto e@cept that petitioner is alread3 bein, dischar,ed fro0 his
e0plo30ent. The fact that thereafter the personnel 0ana,er e@erted efforts to
convince petitioner to return to his .or: as he .as not dis0issed but 0erel3 re&
assi,ned to the co0pan35s pool of drivers did not cure the vice of petitioner5s
earlier arbitrar3 dis0issal inas0uch as the .ron, had alread3 been co00itted
and the har0 done.A
#
Petitioners 0oved for a reconsideration of the above decision but the sa0e .as
denied b3 the !ourt of %ppeals in its resolution dated 2anuar3 #4, 1))).
Petitioners no. co0e to this !ourt see:in, the reversal of the Eud,0ent of the
!ourt of %ppeals, ar,uin, that6
I.
TH 8INDIN'S O8 8%!T O8 TH N/R!, 7IN' S>PPORTD 7F
S>7ST%NTI%/ VIDN!, SHO>/D H%V 7N 'IVN D> ?I'HT %ND
RSP!T, I8 NOT 8IN%/ITF.
II.
TH VIDN! ON H%ND !/%R/F SHO?S TH%T RSPONDNT ?%S NOT
DISMISSD 7F TH !OMP%NF, %ND TH%T IT ?%S RSPONDNT ?HO
%7%NDOND HIS MP/OFMNT.
III.
!ONSIDRIN' TH%T IT ?%S RSPONDNT ?HO SVRD HIS
MP/OFMNT ?ITH TH !OMP%NF, THR IS NO 7%SIS TO R>/ TH%T
RSPONDNT ?%S DNID D> PRO!SS.
IV.
%N %?%RD 8OR P%FMNT O8 7%!G?%'S !%NNOT 7 PROPR/F M%D
IN TH PRSNT !%S, %S RSPONDNT ?I/8>//F R8>SD TO
RPORT 7%!G TO ?ORG.
1
It is i00ediatel3 apparent that the fore,oin, ar,u0ents are Huestions of fact. ?e
have consistentl3 ruled that it is not the function of this !ourt to assess and
evaluate the facts and the evidence all over a,ain, our Eurisdiction bein,
,enerall3 li0ited to revie.in, errors of la. that 0i,ht have been co00itted b3
the lo.er court. Nevertheless, since the factual findin,s of the !ourt of %ppeals
are at variance .ith those of the N/R!, .e are co0pelled to revie. the records
presented in both the !ourt of %ppeals and the said a,enc3.
=
The afore0entioned ar,u0ents, bein, interrelated, shall be Eointl3 discussed.
The cru@ of the controvers3 0a3 be narro.ed do.n to t.o 0ain issues6 "#$
.hether respondent .as unla.full3 dis0issed b3 petitioners and "1$ .hether
respondent abandoned his .or:.
?e 0ust e0phasi<e that .hile the findin,s of fact of the N/R! are ,enerall3
accorded not onl3 respect but also, at ti0es, even the sta0p of finalit3, the rule is
eHuall3 settled that this !ourt .ill not uphold erroneous conclusions of the N/R!
if the !ourt finds that it co00itted ,rave abuse of discretion or if the N/R!5s
findin,s of fact on .hich its conclusions are based are not supported b3
substantial evidence.
4
Substantial evidence, .hich is the Huantu0 of evidence
reHuired to establish a fact in cases before ad0inistrative or Huasi&Eudicial bodies,
is that level of relevant evidence .hich a reasonable 0ind 0i,ht accept as
adeHuate to Eustif3 a conclusion.
(
In the instant case, .hile the N/R! found that respondent .as not dis0issed
fro0 .or:, this !ourt is of a contrar3 opinion. It is clear fro0 the records that on
Nove0ber =, #**4, i00ediatel3 after a verbal tussle .ith Re,ina, respondent
.as repri0anded and casti,ated b3 Re,ina5s 0other, /inda /a,da0eo. The
.ords A3ou5re firedA .ere clear, uneHuivocal, and cate,orical. Moreover,
respondent .as ordered to surrender his co0pan3 identification cards and
unifor0s. These orders ca0e fro0 no less than the senior vice&president of the
co0pan3. %ll these circu0stances .ere sufficient to create the i0pression in the
0ind of respondent I and correctl3 so & that his services .ere bein, ter0inated.
The acts of /inda /a,da0eo .ere indicative of her intention to dis0iss
respondent fro0 e0plo30ent.
Petitioners5 subseHuent effort to visit respondent in his residence and to assure
hi0 that he .as not dis0issed fro0 .or: .as futile and did little to rectif3 the
situation. 2urisprudence abounds on the rule that the t.in reHuire0ents of notice
and hearin, 0ust be co0plied .ith before a valid dis0issal can ta:e place.
-
%n3
procedural shortcut that effectivel3 allo.s an e0plo3er to assu0e the dual roles
of accuser and Eud,e at the sa0e ti0e treads on dan,erous ,round. Needless to
state, the failure to co0pl3 .ith the reHuire0ents taints the dis0issal .ith
ille,alit3.
!o0pliance .ith the 0andator3 reHuire0ents .as undeniabl3 absent in the case
at bar. Petitioners dis0issed respondent on Nove0ber =, #**4 .ithout ,ivin, hi0
an3 .ritten notice infor0in, hi0 of the cause for his ter0ination. /i:e.ise, no
hearin, .as conducted in order to ,ive respondent the opportunit3 to be heard
and defend hi0self. He .as si0pl3 told A3ou5re firedA after a disa,ree0ent .ith
/a,da0eo5s dau,hter. !learl3, respondent5s services .ere ter0inated .ithout
an3 re,ard for an e0plo3ee5s ri,ht to procedural and substantive due process.
8urther, .here there is no sho.in, of a clear, valid and le,al cause for the
ter0ination of e0plo30ent, the la. considers the 0atter to be a case of ille,al
dis0issal. The burden is then on the e0plo3er to prove that the ter0ination .as
for a valid or Eustified cause.
B
Petitioners failed to dischar,e its burden.
On the other hand, .e also cannot accept the contention of petitioners that it .as
respondent .ho abandoned his Eob. 8or abandon0ent to e@ist, t.o ele0ents
0ust concur6 "#$ the failure to report for .or: or absence .ithout valid or
Eustifiable reason and "1$ a clear intention to sever the e0plo3er&e0plo3ee
relationship. Of the t.o, the second ele0ent is the 0ore deter0inative factor.
Mere absence is not sufficient and it is the e0plo3er .ho has the burden of proof
to sho. a deliberate and unEustified refusal on the part of the e0plo3ee to
resu0e his e0plo30ent .ithout an3 intention of returnin,.
+
Petitioners5 evidence
of abandon0ent of .or: b3 respondent fails to persuade us. The alle,ed intent
on the part of respondent to discontinue his e0plo30ent .as belied b3 his filin,
of a co0plaint for ille,al dis0issal the ver3 ne@t da3 after he .as re0oved fro0
service b3 /a,da0eo. The filin, of said co0plaint .as proof enou,h of his desire
to return to .or:, thus ne,atin, an3 su,,estion of abandon0ent. It is settled that
the filin, of a co0plaint for ille,al dis0issal is inconsistent .ith a char,e of
abandon0ent, for an e0plo3ee .ho ta:es steps to protest his la3&off cannot b3
an3 lo,ic be said to have abandoned his .or:.
*
Havin, deter0ined that respondent did not abandon his Eob but .as ille,all3
dis0issed, .e ne@t resolve the Huestion of .hether respondent is entitled to
reinstate0ent and bac:.a,es.
>nder %rticle 1B* of the /abor !ode, as a0ended, an e0plo3ee .ho is unEustl3
dis0issed fro0 .or: shall be entitled to reinstate0ent .ithout loss of seniorit3
ri,hts and other privile,es and to his full bac:.a,es, inclusive of allo.ances, and
to other benefits or their 0onetar3 eHuivalent co0puted fro0 the ti0e his
co0pensation .as .ithheld fro0 hi0 up to the ti0e of his actual reinstate0ent.
It bein, clearl3 established that herein respondent .as ille,all3 dis0issed, the
decision of the !ourt of %ppeals orderin, his reinstate0ent and a.ardin, hi0
bac:.a,es is definitel3 in order.
%s a final note, the reason for the passa,e of labor la.s is social Eustice. The
!onstitution sa3s that Athe State affir0s labor as a pri0ar3 social econo0ic force,
and therefore, it shall protect the ri,hts of .or:ers and pro0ote their .elfare.
#)
?ith the fore,oin, in 0ind, .e affir0 the findin,s of the appellate court.
?HR8OR, the petition is DNID and the assailed decision of the !ourt of
%ppeals is hereb3 %88IRMD in toto.
SO ORDRD.
Puno, (Chairman), and Morales, JJ., concur.
Panganiban, J., no part due to close family relations with a party.
Sandoval!utierre", J., on leave.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
8IRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 1484'2 M!( ', 200)
&UENAENTURA C. MAGSALIN & COCA*COLA &OTTLERS P+ILS., INC.,
petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL ORGANI,ATION OF -OR.ING MEN /N.O.-.M.0, RO%OLFO
MELGAR, ARNEL %ELOS SANTOS, SILERIO MIN%A1AO, RU&EN
NAALES, &O&&2 AUSTERO, RA2MUN%O GAU%ICOS, C+RISTOP+ER
PERALTA, GIOANI %ELA CRU,, 1OSELITO OCCI%ENTAL, AMA%O
&O%ASAN, FRE%ERI. MAGALINO, C+ITO OCCI%ENTAL, ALE3AN%ER
%ELOS SANTOS, %EONIL MESA, OLIER ILLAFLOR, RO&ERTO
TUMON&A, RO%RIGO ANGELES, ROMMEL A&A%, FELI3 AENI%O,
ARMAN%O AMOR, FRE%ERIC. %E GU,MAN, CEA CARMELO, MARIANO
CA4ETE, AL&ERTO ANTONES, ROMEO &AS5UINAS, ROGELIO MALINIS,
E%MUN%O &A2OS, RAMIL REA%O, 1OEL PIATA, OSCAR MALINA2,
RO&ERT RE2ES, 1IMM2 RE2ES, RETC+EL +AUTEA, ICTORINO
TORRAL&A, NOEL RU&AI, RENATO %E OCAMPO, 1ESUS NO,ON, 1OEL
MALINIS, RE2NAL%O GREGOR2, MIC+AEL RU&IA, 1OSELITO
ILLANUEA, LEONAR%O MON%INA, E%UAR%O &ELLA, -ILFRE%O
&ELLA, AL&ERTO MAGTI&A2, MIGUEL CUESTA, 1OSE MARCOS
RO%RIGUE, III, +ERMINIO ROFLO, ERNIE C+AE,, NELSON LOGRONIO,
LEONILO GALAPIN, RE2 PANGILINAN, LARR2 1AIER, MATIAS AR&UES,
RONILO AUSTERO, A%EMAR ESTUITA, E%-IN %E LEON, RAN%2 %E
C+AE,, respondents.
ITUG, J.6
!oca&!ola 7ottlers Phils., Inc., herein petitioner, en,a,ed the services of
respondent .or:ers as Asales route helpersA for a li0ited period of five 0onths.
%fter five 0onths, respondent .or:ers .ere e0plo3ed b3 petitioner co0pan3 on
a da3&to&da3 basis. %ccordin, to petitioner co0pan3, respondent .or:ers .ere
hired to substitute for re,ular sales route helpers .henever the latter .ould be
unavailable or .hen there .ould be an une@pected shorta,e of 0anpo.er in an3
of its .or: places or an unusuall3 hi,h volu0e of .or:. The practice .as for the
.or:ers to .ait ever3 0ornin, outside the ,ates of the sales office of petitioner
co0pan3. If thus hired, the .or:ers .ould then be paid their .a,es at the end of
the da3.
>lti0atel3, respondent .or:ers as:ed petitioner co0pan3 to e@tend to the0
re,ular appoint0ents. Petitioner co0pan3 refused. On )B Nove0ber #**B,
t.ent3&three "1=$ of the Ate0porar3A .or:ers "herein respondents$ filed .ith the
National /abor Relations !o00ission "N/R!$ a co0plaint for the re,ulari<ation
of their e0plo30ent .ith petitioner co0pan3. The co0plaint .as a0ended a
nu0ber of ti0es to include other co0plainants that ulti0atel3 totaled fift3&ei,ht
"(+$ .or:ers. !lai0in, that petitioner co0pan3 0ean.hile ter0inated their
services, respondent .or:ers filed a notice of stri:e and a co0plaint for ille,al
dis0issal and unfair labor practice .ith the N/R!.
On )# %pril #**+, the parties a,reed to sub0it the controvers3, includin, the
issue raised in the co0plaint for re,ulari<ation of e0plo30ent, for voluntar3
arbitration. On #+ Ma3 #**+, the voluntar3 arbitrator rendered a decision
dis0issin, the co0plaint on the thesis that respondents "then co0plainants$
.ere not re,ular e0plo3ees of petitioner co0pan3.
Respondent .or:ers filed .ith the !ourt of %ppeals a petition for revie. under
Rule 4= of the Rules of !ivil Procedure assailin, the decision of the voluntar3
arbitrator, therein contendin, that &
A#. The Voluntar3 %rbitrator co00itted errors in findin, that
petitioners voluntaril3 and :no.in,l3 a,reed to be e0plo3ed on a
da3&to&da3 basisJ and
A1. The Voluntar3 %rbitrator co00itted errors in findin, that
petitionersK dis0issal .as valid.A
#
In its decision of ## %u,ust 1))), the !ourt of %ppeals reversed and set aside
the rulin, of the voluntar3 arbitrator, it concluded &
A?HR8OR, the assailed decision of the Voluntar3 %rbitrator is
hereb3 RVRSD and ST %SID and ane. one is entered6
A#. Declarin, petitioners as re,ular e0plo3ees of !oca&!ola
7ottlers Phils., Inc. and their dis0issal fro0 e0plo30ent as
ille,alJ
A1. Orderin, respondent !oca&!ola 7ottlers Phils., Inc. to
reinstate petitioners to their for0er positions .ith full
bac:.a,es, inclusive of allo.ances that petitioners had
been receivin, durin, their e0plo30ent and #=
th
0onth pa3,
co0puted fro0 the date of their ter0ination up to the ti0e of
their actual reinstate0ent "Para0ount Vin3l Product !orp.
vs. N/R!, #*) S!R% (1-$.A
1
Petitioner co0pan3Ks 0otion for reconsideration .as denied in a resolution, dated
1# Ma3 1))#, of the appellate court.
The focal issues revolve around the 0atter of .hether or not the nature of .or:
of respondents in the co0pan3 is of such nature as to be dee0ed necessar3 and
desirable in the usual business or trade of petitioner that could Hualif3 the0 to be
re,ular e0plo3ees.
The basic la. on the case is %rticle 1+) of the /abor !ode. Its pertinent
provisions read6
A%rt. 1+). Re,ular and !asual 0plo30ent. I The provisions of
.ritten a,ree0ent to the contrar3 not.ithstandin, and re,ardless of
the oral a,ree0ent of the parties, an e0plo30ent shall be dee0ed
to be re,ular .here the e0plo3ee has been en,a,ed to perfor0
activities .hich are usuall3 necessar3 or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the e0plo3er, e@cept .here the e0plo30ent
has been fi@ed for a specific proEect or underta:in, the co0pletion
or ter0ination of .hich has been deter0ined at the ti0e of the
en,a,e0ent of the e0plo3ee or .here the .or: or services to be
perfor0ed is seasonal in nature and the e0plo30ent is for the
duration of the season.
A%n e0plo30ent shall be dee0ed to be casual if it is not covered b3
the precedin, para,raph6 Provided, That, an3 e0plo3ee .ho has
rendered at least one 3ear of service, .hether such service is
continuous or bro:en, shall be considered a re,ular e0plo3ee .ith
respect to the activit3 in .hich he is e0plo3ed and his e0plo30ent
shall continue .hile such activit3 e@ists.A
!oca&!ola 7ottlers Phils., Inc., is one of the leadin, and lar,est 0anufacturers of
softdrin:s in the countr3. Respondent .or:ers have lon, been in the service of
petitioner co0pan3. Respondent .or:ers, .hen hired, .ould ,o .ith route
sales0en on board deliver3 truc:s and underta:e the laborious tas: of loadin,
and unloadin, softdrin: products of petitioner co0pan3 to its various deliver3
points.
ven .hile the lan,ua,e of la. 0i,ht have been 0ore definitive, the clarit3 of its
spirit and intent, i.e., to ensure a Are,ularA .or:erKs securit3 of tenure, ho.ever,
can hardl3 be doubted. In deter0inin, .hether an e0plo30ent should be
considered re,ular or non&re,ular, the applicable test is the reasonable
connection bet.een the particular activit3 perfor0ed b3 the e0plo3ee in relation
to the usual business or trade of the e0plo3er. The standard, supplied b3 the la.
itself, is .hether the .or: underta:en is necessar3 or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the e0plo3er, a fact that can be assessed b3 loo:in, into the
nature of the services rendered and its relation to the ,eneral sche0e under
.hich the business or trade is pursued in the usual course. It is distin,uished
fro0 a specific underta:in, that is divorced fro0 the nor0al activities reHuired in
carr3in, on the particular business or trade. 7ut, althou,h the .or: to be
perfor0ed is onl3 for a specific proEect or seasonal, .here a person thus
en,a,ed has been perfor0in, the Eob for at least one 3ear, even if the
perfor0ance is not continuous or is 0erel3 inter0ittent, the la. dee0s the
repeated and continuin, need for its perfor0ance as bein, sufficient to indicate
the necessit3 or desirabilit3 of that activit3 to the business or trade of the
e0plo3er. The e0plo30ent of such person is also then dee0ed to be re,ular
.ith respect to such activit3 and .hile such activit3 e@ists.
=
The ar,u0ent of petitioner that its usual business or trade is softdrin:
0anufacturin, and that the .or: assi,ned to respondent .or:ers as sales route
helpers so involves 0erel3 Apostproduction activities,A one .hich is not
indispensable in the 0anufacture of its products, scarcel3 can be persuasive. If,
as so ar,ued b3 petitioner co0pan3, onl3 those .hose .or: are directl3 involved
in the production of softdrin:s 0a3 be held perfor0in, functions necessar3 and
desirable in its usual business or trade, there .ould have then been no need for
it to even 0aintain re,ular truc: sales route helpers. The nature of the .or:
perfor0ed 0ust be vie.ed fro0 a perspective of the business or trade in its
entiret3
4
and not on a confined scope.
The repeated rehirin, of respondent .or:ers and the continuin, need for their
services clearl3 attest to the necessit3 or desirabilit3 of their services in the
re,ular conduct of the business or trade of petitioner co0pan3. The !ourt of
%ppeals has found each of respondents to have .or:ed for at least one 3ear .ith
petitioner co0pan3. ?hile this !ourt, in 7rent School, Inc. vs. La0ora,
(
has
upheld the le,alit3 of a fi@ed&ter0 e0plo30ent, it has done so, ho.ever, .ith a
stern ad0onition that .here fro0 the circu0stances it is apparent that the period
has been i0posed to preclude the acHuisition of tenurial securit3 b3 the
e0plo3ee, then it should be struc: do.n as bein, contrar3 to la., 0orals, ,ood
custo0s, public order and public polic3. The pernicious practice of havin,
e0plo3ees, .or:ers and laborers, en,a,ed for a fi@ed period of fe. 0onths,
short of the nor0al si@&0onth probationar3 period of e0plo30ent, and, thereafter,
to be hired on a da3&to&da3 basis, 0oc:s the la.. %n3 obvious circu0vention of
the la. cannot be countenanced. The fact that respondent .or:ers have a,reed
to be e0plo3ed on such basis and to fore,o the protection ,iven to the0 on their
securit3 of tenure, de0onstrate nothin, 0ore than the serious proble0 of
i0poverish0ent of so 0an3 of our people and the resultin, unevenness bet.een
labor and capital. % contract of e0plo30ent is i0pressed .ith public interest. The
provisions of applicable statutes are dee0ed .ritten into the contract, and Athe
parties are not at libert3 to insulate the0selves and their relationships fro0 the
i0pact of labor la.s and re,ulations b3 si0pl3 contractin, .ith each other.A
-
?ith respect to the ARelease, ?aiver and ;uitclai0A e@ecuted b3 thirt3&si@ "=-$ of
the ori,inal co0plainants, na0el3, Ro00el %bad, %r0ando %0or, 7obb3
%ustero, 8eli@ %venido, %0ado 7adasan, d0undo 7a3os, duardo 7ella, 2r.,
Mariano !a9ete, !ar0elo !ea, rnie !have<, Rand3 Dechaves, 8rederic: De
'u<0an, Renato De Oca0po, %de0ar stuita, /eonilo 'alapin, Ra30und
'audicos, Retchel Hautea, /arr3 2avier, Nelson /o,rinio, %lberto Ma,tiba3,
8rederic: Ma,allano, Ro,elio Malinis, Rodolfo Mel,ar, Silverio MindaEao,
/eonardo Mondina, Ruben Navales, Re3 Pan,ilinan, !hristopher Peralta, 2i003
Re3es, Her0inio Roflo, Michael Rubia, Noel Rubia, Roberto Tu0o0ba, Oliver
Villaflor, and 2oselito Villanueva, this !ourt finds the e@ecution of the sa0e to be
in order. Durin, the pendenc3 of the appeal .ith the !ourt of %ppeals, these
thirt3&si@ "=-$ co0plainants individuall3 e@ecuted voluntaril3 a release, .aiver
and Huitclai0 and received fro0 petitioner co0pan3 the a0ount of fifteen
thousand "P#(,))).))$ pesos each. The a0ount accords .ith the disposition of
the case b3 the voluntar3 arbitrator thusl36
A?HR8OR, above pre0ises considered, the herein co0plaint
is hereb3 DISMISSD for lac: of 0erit.
AHo.ever, .e cannot co0pletel3 ne,ate the fact that co0plainants
did and do actuall3 render services to the !o0pan3. It is .ith this in
0ind and considerin, the difficult3 the co0plainants 0a3 face in
loo:in, for another Eob in case the3 are no lon,er re&en,a,ed that
.e direct the co0pan3 to pa3 co0plainants 8ifteen Thousand
Pesos each "P#(,))).))$ as financial assistance. It is ho.ever
understood that the financial assistance previousl3 e@tended b3 the
!o0pan3 to so0e of the co0plainants shall be deducted fro0 the
financial assistance herein a.arded.A
B
The receipt of the a0ount a.arded b3 the voluntar3 arbitrator, as .ell as the
e@ecution of a release, .aiver and Huitclai0, is, in effect, an acceptance of said
decision. There is nothin, on record .hich could indicate that the e@ecution
thereof b3 thirt3&si@ "=-$ of the respondent .or:ers has been attended b3 fraud or
deceit. ?hile Huitclai0s e@ecuted b3 e0plo3ees are co00onl3 fro.ned upon as
bein, contrar3 to public polic3 and are ineffective to bar clai0s for the full
0easure of their le,al ri,hts, there are, ho.ever, le,iti0ate .aivers that
represent a voluntar3 and reasonable settle0ent of laborersK clai0s .hich should
be so respected b3 the !ourt as the la. bet.een the parties.
+
?here the person
0a:in, the .aiver has done so voluntaril3, .ith a full understandin, thereof, and
the consideration for the Huitclai0 is credible and reasonable, the transaction
0ust be reco,ni<ed as bein, a valid and bindin, underta:in,. ADire necessit3A is
not an acceptable ,round for annullin, the release, .hen it is not sho.n that the
e0plo3ee has been forced to e@ecute it.
*
-+EREFORE, the Huestioned decision of the !ourt of %ppeals, in !%&'.R. SP
No. 4B+B1 is hereb3 %88IRMD .ith MODI8I!%TION in that the ARelease,
?aiver and ;uitclai0A e@ecuted b3 the thirt3&si@ "=-$ individual respondents are
hereb3 declared V%/ID and /'%/.
SO ORDRD.
#avide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), $naresSantiago, Carpio, and %"cuna, JJ., concur.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
S!OND DIVISION
G.R. No. 177707 Febr8!r( 17, 2009
EMILIO M. CAPAROSO !"# 1OEE P. 5UIN%IPAN, Petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LA&OR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
COMPOSITE ENTERPRISES INCORPORATE%, !"# E%IT+ TAN,
Respondents.
D ! I S I O N
CARPIO, J.6
T:e C!;e
7efore the !ourt is a petition for revie. assailin, the 1B 2une 1))1 Decision
#
and
=) Septe0ber 1))1 Resolution
1
of the !ourt of %ppeals in !%&'.R. SP No.
-B#(-.
T:e A"tece#e"t F!ct;
!o0posite nterprises Incorporated "!o0posite$ is en,a,ed in the distribution
and suppl3 of confectioneries to various retail establish0ents .ithin the
Philippines. 0ilio M. !aparoso "!aparoso$ and 2oeve P. ;uindipan ";uindipan$
.ere !o0posite5s deliver30en. !aparoso alle,ed that he .as hired on +
Nove0ber #**+ .hile ;uindipan alle,ed that he .as hired on inter0ittent basis
since #**B. ;uindipan further alle,ed that he had been .or:in, continuousl3
.ith !o0posite since %u,ust #**+.
On + October #***, !aparoso and ;uindipan "petitioners$ .ere dis0issed fro0
the service.
The3 filed a consolidated position paper before the /abor %rbiter char,in,
!o0posite and its Personnel Mana,er dith Tan "Tan$ .ith ille,al dis0issal.
!o0posite and Tan "respondents$ alle,ed that petitioners .ere both hired on ##
Ma3 #*** as deliver30en, initiall3 for three 0onths and then on a 0onth&to&
0onth basis. Respondents alle,ed that petitioners5 ter0ination fro0 e0plo30ent
resulted fro0 the e@piration of their contracts of e0plo30ent on + October #***.
The /abor %rbiter ruled that petitioners are re,ular e0plo3ees of respondents. In
his Decision
=
dated #( 2une 1))), the /abor %rbiter held6
?HR8OR, pre0ises considered, Eud,0ent is hereb3 rendered declarin,
co0plainants to have been ille,all3 dis0issed fro0 e0plo30ent and
conseHuentl3, respondent !OMPOSIT NTRPRISS !ORPOR%TION is
hereb3 ordered to i00ediatel3 reinstate co0plainants to their respective for0er
positionMsN .ithout loss of seniorit3 ri,hts and other privile,es, .ith full
bac:.a,es fro0 the date of dis0issal up to the actual date of reinstate0ent
.hich, as of this date, a0ounts to P *=,#((.=-, as above co0puted.
SO ORDRD.
4

The /abor %rbiter ruled that b3 the ver3 nature of respondents5 business and the
nature of petitioners5 services, there is no doubt as to the e0plo30ent status of
petitioners.
Respondents appealed to the National /abor Relations !o00ission "N/R!$. In
its * Ma3 1))# Decision,
(
the N/R! set aside the /abor %rbiter5s Decision and
dis0issed petitioners5 co0plaint for ille,al dis0issal. The N/R! ruled that the
0ere fact that the e0plo3ees5 duties are necessar3 or desirable in the business
or trade of the e0plo3er does not 0ean that the3 are forbidden fro0 stipulatin,
the period of e0plo30ent. The N/R! held that petitioners5 contracts of
e0plo30ent are valid and bindin, bet.een the contractin, parties and shall be
considered as the la. bet.een the0. The N/R! ruled that petitioners are bound
b3 their e0plo30ent contracts.
Petitioners filed a 0otion for reconsideration. The N/R! denied the 0otion in its
* %u,ust 1))# Resolution.
-

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the !ourt of %ppeals.
T:e R8<="> o? t:e Co8rt o? A@@e!<;
In its 1B 2une 1))1 Decision, the !ourt of %ppeals dis0issed the petition and
affir0ed the N/R!5s * Ma3 1))# Decision and * %u,ust 1))# Resolution.
The !ourt of %ppeals held that respondents5 0anpo.er reHuire0ent varies fro0
0onth to 0onth dependin, on the de0and fro0 their clients for their products.
Respondents5 0anpo.er reHuire0ent deter0ines the period of their e0plo3ees5
services. Respondents e0plo3ed petitioners for the purpose of addressin, a
te0porar3 0anpo.er shorta,e.
Petitioners filed a 0otion for reconsideration. In its =) Septe0ber 1))1
Resolution, the !ourt of %ppeals denied the 0otion for reconsideration.
Hence, the petition before this !ourt.
T:e I;;8e;
The petition raises these issues6
#. ?hether petitioners are re,ular e0plo3ees of respondentsJ and
1. ?hether respondents are ,uilt3 of ille,al dis0issal.
T:e R8<="> o? t:=; Co8rt
The petition has no 0erit.
Petitioners are Not Regular Employees
%rticle 1+) of the /abor !ode provides6
%rt. 1+). Re,ular and !asual 0plo30ent. & The provisions of .ritten a,ree0ent
to the contrar3 not.ithstandin, and re,ardless of the oral a,ree0ent of the
parties, an e0plo30ent shall be dee0ed to be re,ular .here the e0plo3ee has
been en,a,ed to perfor0 activities .hich are usuall3 necessar3 or desirable in
the usual business or trade of the e0plo3er, e@cept .here the e0plo30ent has
been fi@ed for a specific proEect or underta:in, the co0pletion or ter0ination of
.hich has been deter0ined at the ti0e of the en,a,e0ent of the e0plo3ee or
.here the .or: or services to be perfor0ed is seasonal in nature and the
e0plo30ent is for the duration of the season.
%n e0plo30ent shall be dee0ed to be casual if it is not covered b3 the precedin,
para,raph6 Provided, That, an3 e0plo3ee .ho has rendered at least one 3ear of
service, .hether such service is continuous or bro:en, shall be considered a
re,ular e0plo3ee .ith respect to the activit3 in .hich he is e0plo3ed and his
e0plo30ent shall continue .hile such activit3 e@ists.
>nder %rticle 1+) of the /abor !ode, a re,ular e0plo3ee is "#$ one .ho is
en,a,ed to perfor0 activities that are necessar3 or desirable in the usual trade or
business of the e0plo3er, or "1$ a casual e0plo3ee .ho has rendered at least
one 3ear of service, .hether continuous or bro:en, .ith respect to the activit3 in
.hich he is e0plo3ed.
B

Ho.ever, even if an e0plo3ee is en,a,ed to perfor0 activities that are
necessar3 or desirable in the usual trade or business of the e0plo3er, it does not
preclude the fi@in, of e0plo30ent for a definite period.
In &rent School, 'nc. v. (amora,
+
this !ourt ruled that the contract, .hich .as
entered into before the effectivit3 of the /abor !ode on # Nove0ber #*B4, .as
valid under Republic %ct No. #)(1 or the Ter0ination Pa3 /a., as a0ended.
%lthou,h the contract .as entered into before the effectivit3 of the /abor !ode,
the !ourt traced ho. the present %rticle 1+) of the /abor !ode, .hich deleted
e0plo30ent .ith fi@ed or definite period, evolved. In sustainin, the validit3 of
fi@ed&ter0 e0plo30ent, the !ourt e@plained in &rent6
%ccordin,l3, and since the entire purpose behind the develop0ent of le,islation
cul0inatin, in the present %rticle 1+) of the /abor !ode clearl3 appears to have
been, as alread3 observed, to prevent circu0vention of the e0plo3ee5s ri,ht to
be secure in his tenure, the clause in said article indiscri0inatel3 and co0pletel3
rulin, out all .ritten or oral a,ree0ents conflictin, .ith the concept of re,ular
e0plo30ent as defined therein should be construed to refer to the substantive
evil that the !ode itself has sin,led out6 a,ree0ents entered into precisel3 to
circu0vent securit3 of tenure. It should have no application to instances .here a
fi@ed period of e0plo30ent .as a,reed upon :no.in,l3 and voluntaril3 b3 the
parties, .ithout an3 force, duress or i0proper pressure bein, brou,ht to bear
upon the e0plo3ee and absent an3 other circu0stances vitiatin, his consent, or
.here it satisfactoril3 appears that the e0plo3er and e0plo3ee dealt .ith each
other on 0ore or less eHual ter0s .ith no 0oral do0inance .hatever bein,
e@ercised b3 the for0er over the latter. >nless thus li0ited in its purvie., the la.
.ould be 0ade to appl3 to purposes other than those e@plicitl3 stated b3 its
fra0ersJ it thus beco0e pointless and arbitrar3, unEust in its effects and apt to
lead to absurd and unintended conseHuences.
*

The !ourt thus laid do.n the criteria under .hich fi@ed&ter0 e0plo30ent could
not be said to be in circu0vention of the la. on securit3 of tenure, thus6
#. The fi@ed period of e0plo30ent .as :no.in,l3 and voluntaril3
a,reed upon b3 the parties .ithout an3 force, duress, or i0proper
pressure bein, brou,ht to bear upon the e0plo3ee and absent an3
other circu0stances vitiatin, his consentJ or
1. It satisfactoril3 appears that the e0plo3er and the e0plo3ee
dealt .ith each other on 0ore or less eHual ter0s .ith no 0oral
do0inance e@ercised b3 the for0er or the latter.
#)

?e a,ree .ith the !ourt of %ppeals that in this case, the fi@ed period of
e0plo30ent .as :no.in,l3 and voluntaril3 a,reed upon b3 the parties. T:e
Co8rt o? A@@e!<; "ote# t:!t t:ere A!; "o ="#=c!t=o" o? ?orce, #8re;;, or
=B@ro@er @re;;8re eCerte# o" @et=t=o"er; A:e" t:e( ;=>"e# t:e co"tr!ct;.
F8rt:er, t:ere A!; "o @roo? t:!t re;@o"#e"t; Aere re>8<!r<( e">!>e# ="
:=r="> AorDer; ?or AorD ?or ! B="=B8B @er=o# o? ?=Ee Bo"t:; to @reEe"t t:e
re>8<!r=F!t=o" o? t:e=r eB@<o(ee;. Petitioners Employment is akin to
Probationary Employment
%t 0ost, petitioners5 e0plo30ent for less than si@ 0onths can be considered
probationar3. %rticle 1+# of the /abor !ode provides6
%rt. 1+#. Probationar3 0plo30ent. & Probationar3 e0plo30ent shall not e@ceed
si@ "-$ 0onths fro0 the date the e0plo3ee started .or:in,, unless it is covered
b3 an apprenticeship a,ree0ent stipulatin, a lon,er period. The services of an
e0plo3ee .ho has been en,a,ed on a probationar3 basis 0a3 be ter0inated for
a Eust cause or .hen he fails to Hualif3 as a re,ular e0plo3ee in accordance .ith
reasonable standards 0ade :no.n b3 the e0plo3er to the e0plo3ee at the ti0e
of his en,a,e0ent. %n e0plo3ee .ho is allo.ed to .or: after a probationar3
period shall be considered a re,ular e0plo3ee.
Petitioners .ere hired on ## Ma3 #***, initiall3 for three 0onths. %fter the
e@piration of their contracts, petitioners .ere hired on a 0onth&to&0onth basis.
Their contracts of e0plo30ent ended on + October #***. +e"ce, t:e( Aere
eB@<o(e# ?or ! tot!< o? ?=Ee Bo"t:;. Their e0plo30ent did not even e@ceed si@
0onths to entitle the0 to beco0e re,ular e0plo3ees.
?e cannot accept petitioners5 bare alle,ations that !aparoso .as hired on +
Nove0ber #**+ .hile ;uindipan .as hired on inter0ittent basis since #**B.
Petitioners failed to substantiate their alle,ations. The pa3slips sub0itted b3
petitioners to prove their prior e0plo30ent .ith respondents are hand.ritten and
indicate onl3 the date and a0ount of pa3. The3 do not even indicate the na0e of
the e0plo3er. The printed pa3slips durin, the period of the contracts indicate not
onl3 the na0e of the e0plo3er but also the brea:do.n of petitioners5 net pa3.
Petitioners were not Illegally Dismissed from Employment
Petitioners5 ter0s of e0plo30ent are ,overned b3 their fi@ed&ter0 contracts.
Petitioners5 fi@ed&ter0 e0plo30ent contracts had e@pired. The3 .ere not ille,all3
dis0issed fro0 e0plo30ent.
This !ourt has ruled that Aif fro0 the circu0stances it is apparent that periods
have been i0posed to preclude acHuisition of tenurial securit3 b3 the e0plo3ee,
the3 should be disre,arded for bein, contrar3 to public polic3.A
##
In this case, it
.as not established that respondents intended to den3 petitioners their ri,ht to
securit3 of tenure. 7esides, petitioners5 e0plo30ent did not e@ceed si@ 0onths.
Thus, the !ourt of %ppeals did not err in sustainin, petitioners5 dis0issal fro0
e0plo30ent.
-+EREFORE, .e %EN2 the petition. ?e AFFIRM the 1B 2une 1))1 Decision
and =) Septe0ber 1))1 Resolution in !%&'.R. SP No. -B#(-.
SO OR%ERE%.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
%ssociate 2ustice
? !ON!>R6
LEONAR%O A. 5UISUM&ING
%ssociate 2ustice
!hairperson
CONC+ITA CARPIO MORALES
%ssociate 2ustice
%ANTE O. TINGA
%sscociate 2ustice
PRES&ITERO 1. ELASCO, 1R.
%ssociate 2ustice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case .as assi,ned to the .riter of the opinion of the
!ourt5s Division.
LEONAR%O A. 5UISUM&ING
%ssociate 2ustice
!hairperson
! R T I 8 I ! % T I O N
Pursuant to Section #=, %rticle VIII of the !onstitution, and the Division
!hairperson5s %ttestation, I certif3 that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case .as assi,ned to the .riter of the
opinion of the !ourt5s Division.
RE2NATO S. PUNO
!hief 2ustice
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
OLONGAPO MAINTENANCE
SERVICES, INC.,
Petitioner,
- versus -
EDGARDO B. CHANTENGCO,
SALVACION S. ANIGAN,
POLICARPIO S. ANIGAN, NOEL
C. MENDOA, DANIEL
VALENTIN, MAN!EL T.
MARIANO, CARLOS PALAB"AB,
BETT" B. OLA, SALICIO R.
MAGNO, MICHAEL SALAAR,
LOPE R. MAGNO, GERARDO G.
A#!INO, ED$IN #.
DA"ANDANTE, %OSE P. PRIEL,
ROMEO O. CLETE, ERNESTO O.
CLETE, SAM!EL P. MIRALPES,
PATERNO R. BER!ELA,
ANTONIO C. VALDE, RICARDO
L. LOPE, MAN!EL C. ABADIE,
R!TH S. DOMENS, ALVIN P.
MANGASIL, TIRSO T. TISADO,
EDM!NDO C. SANTOS,
&RANCISCO M. AMORA,
E&REN E. ERGINA, DANIEL
CASIMIRO, CHARLIE GALVE,
EDGARDO RE"ES, CELSO M.
DEL M!NDO, E!GENIA ILAGAN,
RA&AEL CABAIS, DEODERICO
GARCIA, VENANCIO
MAGHANO", OSIMO
DIMAC!LANGAN, D!LLAS
PACOMIO, MARLON
MAGD!R!LAN, GA!DIOSO
BORREL, &ORT!NATO ANANO,
$IL&REDO HERNANDE,
ROLANDO M!CHILLAS, NOMER
MAGNO, NOEL MAGNO,
%EREMIAH CONEL, REMIGIO
PARE'O, CRISANTO LIVINA,
G.R. No. ()*(+*
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
AUSTRIA-ARTINE!,
"#I"O-NA!ARIO, $n%
NA"#URA, JJ&
ROGELIO CASIL, VICENTE
INO&INADA, RIC," BETONIO,
ERNESTO MARASIGAN, ELSA
MARTINE, ROBERTO
MERCANO, ARNEL BA"RON,
ALE-ANDER REGANION,
RODERICO NE"RA, $IL&RED
BATACAN, SALVADOR CRISOL,
%R., EDISON GEMALA"A,
ARNOLD CAMERGA, RAMON
BELMONTE, ERNESTO IGNACIO,
DOMINGO G!ADE, ROMEO
TA'ADA, &A!STO GARCIA,
%!ANITO D!MAGAT, RODOL&O
PIMENTE, ANDRES SAH!RDA,
CACAO% RAMILITO, ARCON
MOLINA, ALE- LIBRO%O,
Respon%ents&
Pro'ul($te%

)une *+, *,,-
.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
D E C I S I O N
NACH!RA, J..
This Petition for Revie/ on Certiorari $ss$ils the )ul0 *1, *,,*
2ecision
+3+4
of the "ourt of Appe$ls $n% its Resolution
*3*4
%$te%
Nove'ber +5, *,,* in "A-G&R& SP No& 6-5-5, /hich, respectivel0,
%enie% the petition for certiorari $n% the 'otion for reconsi%er$tion
7le% b0 Olon($po $inten$nce Services, Inc& 8OSI9&
+
*
OSI is $ corpor$tion en($(e% in the business of provi%in( :$nitori$l
$n% '$inten$nce services to v$rious clients, inclu%in( (overn'ent-o/ne%
$n% controlle% corpor$tions& On v$rious %$tes be(innin( +1;6, OSI hire%
the respon%ents $s :$nitors, (r$ss cutters, $n% %e(re$sers, $n% $ssi(ne%
the' $t the Nino0 A<uino Intern$tion$l Airport 8NAIA9& On )$nu$r0 +5, +111,
OSI ter'in$te% respon%ents= e'plo0'ent&
"l$i'in( ter'in$tion /ithout :ust c$use $n% non-p$0'ent of l$bor
st$n%$r% bene7ts, respon%ents 7le% $ co'pl$int for ille($l %is'iss$l,
un%erp$0'ent of /$(es, $n% non-p$0'ent of holi%$0 $n% service incentive
le$ve p$0s, /ith pr$0er for p$0'ent of sep$r$tion p$0, $($inst OSI&

>or its p$rt, OSI %enie% the $lle($tions in the co'pl$int& It $verre%
th$t /hen $nil$ Intern$tion$l Airport Authorit0 8IAA9 $/$r%e% to OSI the
service contr$cts for the $irport, OSI hire% respon%ents $s :$nitors,
cle$ners, $n% %e(re$sers to %o the services un%er the contr$cts& OSI
infor'e% the respon%ents th$t the0 /ere hire% for the IAA pro:ect $n% their
e'plo0'ents /ere coter'inous /ith the contr$cts& As pro:ect e'plo0ees,
the0 /ere not %is'isse% fro' /or? but their e'plo0'ents ce$se% /hen the
IAA contr$cts /ere not rene/e% upon their e.pir$tion& The ter'in$tion of
respon%ents@ e'plo0'ent c$nnot, thus, be consi%ere% ille($l&
In a Decision
3[3]
dated November 19, 1999, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, viz.:
WHEREFRE, premises considered, !"d#ment is hereb$ rendered
DI%&I%%IN' (or lac) o( merit the claims (or separation pa$, *a#e di((erentials
and holida$ pa$ e+cept that respondent is hereb$ ordered to pa$ the sevent$ one
,-1. complainants listed in pa#es three and (o"r o( the latter/s position paper
their service incentive leave pa$0
SO OR2ERE2&
5354
A
5
On $ppe$l b0 the respon%ents, the NBR" 'o%i7e% the B$bor Arbiter@s
rulin(& It hel% th$t respon%ents /ere re(ul$r $n% not pro:ect e'plo0ees&
#ence, the0 $re entitle% to sep$r$tion p$0:
C#ERE>ORE, the %ecision $ppe$le% fro' is hereb0
'o%i7e% b0 (r$ntin( in $%%ition to the (r$nt of service incentive
le$ve p$0, p$0'ent of sep$r$tion p$0 e<uiv$lent to h$lf-'onth
p$0 per 3ever04 0e$r of service or one 'onth p$0, /hichever is
hi(her&
SO OR2ERE2&
D3D4

OSI sou(ht reconsi%er$tion of the rulin(, but the NBR" %enie% the
'otion on )ul0 A,, *,,+&
Petitioner /ent up to the "ourt of Appe$ls vi$ $ petition for certiorari,
i'putin( (r$ve $buse of %iscretion to the NBR" for reversin( the f$ctu$l
7n%in(s $n% the %ecision of the B$bor Arbiter& #o/ever, the "ourt of Appe$ls
%is'isse% the petition& The $ppell$te court $(ree% /ith the NBR" th$t the
continuous rehirin( of respon%ents, /ho perfor'e% t$s?s necess$r0 $n%
%esir$ble in the usu$l business of OSI, /$s $ cle$r in%ic$tion th$t the0 /ere
re(ul$r, not pro:ect e'plo0ees& The court $%%e% th$t OSI f$ile% to
est$blish th$t respon%ents@ e'plo0'ent h$% been 7.e% for $ speci7c pro:ect
or un%ert$?in(, the co'pletion or ter'in$tion of /hich h$% been %eter'ine%
$t the ti'e of their en($(e'ent or hirin(& Neither h$% it sho/n th$t
respon%ents /ere infor'e% of the %ur$tion $n% scope of their /or? /hen
the0 /ere hire%& >urther'ore, OSI %i% not sub'it to the 2ep$rt'ent of
B$bor $n% E'plo0'ent 82OBE9 reports of ter'in$tion of the respon%ents,
thereb0 bolsterin( respon%ents@ cl$i' of re(ul$r e'plo0'ent& OSI 7le% $
D
'otion for reconsi%er$tion, but the "ourt of Appe$ls %enie% it on Nove'ber
+5, *,,*&
A((rieve% b0 the resolutions of the "ourt of Appe$ls, OSI co'es to
this "ourt theoriEin( th$t:
T#E "OURT O> APPEABS "OITTE2 GRAFE ERROR AN2 GRAFE
AGUSE O> 2IS"RETION AOUNTING TO BA"H OR EI"ESS O>
)URIS2I"TION IN SUSTAINING T#E NBR"=S RUBING T#AT
RESPON2ENTS ARE NOT PRO)E"T EPBOYEES& "ON"OITANT
T#ERETO, T#ERE IS NEIT#ER >A"TUAB NOR BEGAB GASIS >OR
T#E ACAR2 O> SEPARATION PAY&
6364
OSI insists th$t respon%ents /ere pro:ect e'plo0ees& Respon%ents,
on the other h$n%, '$int$in th$t the0 /ere OSI=s re(ul$r e'plo0ees&
Article *;, of the B$bor "o%e provi%es:
ART& *;,& Regular and Casual Employment. - The provisions
of /ritten $(ree'ent to the contr$r0 not/ithst$n%in( $n%
re($r%less of the or$l $(ree'ent of the p$rties, $n e'plo0'ent
sh$ll be %ee'e% to be re(ul$r /here the e'plo0ee h$s been
en($(e% to perfor' $ctivities /hich $re usu$ll0 necess$r0 or
%esir$ble in the usu$l business or tr$%e of the e'plo0er, except
where the employment has been fxed for a specifc project or
undertaing the completion or termination of which has been
determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or
where the wor or ser!ices to be performed is seasonal in nature
and the employment is for the duration of the season & & & 8It$lics
supplie%&9
6
Cithout <uestion, respon%ents, $s :$nitors, (r$ss cutters, $n% %e(re$sers,
perfor'e% /or? Jnecess$r0 or %esir$bleK in the :$nitori$l $n% '$inten$nce
service business of OSI&
OSI, ho/ever, $r(ues th$t the respon%ents= perfor'$nce of $ctivities
necess$r0 $n% %esir$ble to its business %oes not necess$ril0 $n% conclusivel0
'e$n th$t respon%ents /ere re(ul$r e'plo0ees& OSI $sserts th$t
respon%ents /ere pro:ect e'plo0ees $n% their e'plo0'ent /$s coter'inous
/ith OSI@s service contr$cts /ith the IAA& Thus, /hen the service
contr$cts /ere ter'in$te% $n% the respon%ents /ere not re-$ssi(ne% to
$nother pro:ect, OSI c$nnot be hel% li$ble for ille($l %is'iss$l&
The $r(u'ent %oes not persu$%e&
The princip$l test in %eter'inin( /hether $n e'plo0ee is $ pro:ect
e'plo0ee is /hether heLshe is $ssi(ne% to c$rr0 out $ Jspeci7c pro:ect or
un%ert$?in(,K the %ur$tion $n% scope of /hich $re speci7e% $t the ti'e the
e'plo0ee is en($(e% in the pro:ect,
-3-4
or /here the /or? or service to be
perfor'e% is se$son$l in n$ture $n% the e'plo0'ent is for the %ur$tion of
the se$son&
;3;4
A true pro:ect e'plo0ee shoul% be $ssi(ne% to $ pro:ect
/hich be(ins $n% en%s $t %eter'ine% or %eter'in$ble ti'es, $n% be
infor'e% thereof $t the ti'e of hirin(&
1314

In the inst$nt c$se, the recor% is bereft of proof th$t the respon%ents@
en($(e'ent $s pro:ect e'plo0ees h$s been pre%eter'ine%, $s re<uire% b0
l$/& Ce $(ree /ith the "ourt of Appe$ls th$t OSI %i% not provi%e
-
;
1
convincin( evi%ence th$t respon%ents /ere infor'e% th$t the0 /ere to be
$ssi(ne% to $ Jspeci7c pro:ect or un%ert$?in(K /hen OSI hire% the'&
Not$bl0, the e'plo0'ent contr$cts for the speci7c pro:ect si(ne% b0 the
respon%ents /ere never presente%& All th$t OSI sub'itte% in the
procee%in(s a "uo $re the service contr$cts bet/een OSI $n% the IAA&
"le$rl0, OSI utterl0 f$ile% to est$blish b0 subst$nti$l evi%ence th$t, in%ee%,
respon%ents /ere pro:ect e'plo0ees $n% their e'plo0'ent /$s coter'inous
/ith the IAA contr$ct&
Evi%entl0 co(niE$nt of such ne(lect, OSI $tte'pte% to correct the
situ$tion b0 $tt$chin( copies of the $pplic$tion for's
+,3+,4
of the respon%ents
to its 'otion for reconsi%er$tion of the "ourt of Appe$ls= 2ecision& Such
pr$ctice c$nnot be toler$te%& This pr$ctice of sub'ittin( evi%ence l$te is
properl0 re:ecte% $s it %efe$ts the spee%0 $%'inistr$tion of :ustice involvin(
poor /or?ers& It is $lso unf$ir&
++3++4

OSI=s reli$nce on #amansag !. $ational %abor Relations
Commission,
+*3+*4
Cartagenas !. Romago Electric Company, &nc&,
+A3+A4
$n%
'ando!al 'hipyards, &nc. !. $ational %abor Relations Commission
+53+54
is
'ispl$ce%& S$i% c$ses $re not on $ll fours /ith the c$se $t bench&
In #amansag, "onsu'er Pulse Inc& %ul0 presente% the contr$ct of
e'plo0'ent sho/in( th$t $'$ns$( /$s hire% for $ speci7c pro:ect $n%
the co'pletion or ter'in$tion of s$i% pro:ect /$s %eter'ine% $t the st$rt of
the e'plo0'ent& In Cartagenas, %ocu'ent$r0 e.hibits /ere oMere% sho/in(
+,
++
+*
+A
+5
th$t the e'plo0ee h$% been issue% $ppoint'ents fro' pro:ect to pro:ect $n%
/$s issue% $ notice of te'por$r0 l$0-oM /hen the pro:ect /$s suspen%e%
%ue to l$c? of fun%s& >in$ll0, in the c$se of 'ando!al 'hipyards, the
ter'in$tion of the pro:ect e'plo0ees /$s %ul0 reporte% to the then inistr0
of B$bor $n% E'plo0'ent& These circu'st$nces $re not true in OSI=s c$se&
As 'entione%, no convincin( evi%ence /$s oMere% to prove th$t
respon%ents /ere infor'e% th$t the0 /ere to be $ssi(ne% to $ Jspeci7c
pro:ect or un%ert$?in(&K Also, OSI never reporte% respon%ents= ter'in$tion
to the then 2ep$rt'ent of B$bor $n% E'plo0'ent 82OBE9& In (hilippine
%ong )istance *elephone Co. !. +lagan,
+D3+D4
/e hel% th$t the f$ilure of the
e'plo0ee to 7le ter'in$tion reports /$s $n in%ic$tion th$t $n e'plo0ee /$s
not $ pro:ect but $ re(ul$r e'plo0ee&
In ter'in$tion c$ses, the bur%en of proof rests on the e'plo0er to
sho/ th$t the %is'iss$l is for $ :ust c$use& Thus, e'plo0ers /ho hire pro:ect
e'plo0ees $re '$n%$te% to st$te $n%, once its ver$cit0 is ch$llen(e%, to
prove the $ctu$l b$sis for the l$tter=s %is'iss$l&
+63+64
Unfortun$tel0 for OSI,
it f$ile% to %isch$r(e the bur%en& All th$t /e h$ve is OSI@s self-servin(
$ssertion th$t the respon%ents /ere hire% $s pro:ect e'plo0ees&
#$vin( been ille($ll0 %is'isse%, the NBR" c$nnot be consi%ere% to
h$ve $cte% /hi'sic$ll0 in (r$ntin( respon%ents sep$r$tion p$0 in lieu of
their reinst$te'ent& Accor%in(l0, the "ourt of Appe$ls co''itte% no
reversible error nor (r$ve $buse of %iscretion in %en0in( OSI@s petition for
certiorari.
$HERE&ORE, the petition for revie/ is DENIED $n% the $ss$ile%
2ecision $n% Resolution of the "ourt of Appe$ls $re A&&IRMED&
+D
+6
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 1616'4 18"e 26, 2006
PEPITO ELASCO, Petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LA&OR RELATIONS, !"# COMMISSION, ANTONIO TA2AG, ERNESTO
TA2AG !"# RO%OLFO TA2AG, Respondents.
D ! I S I O N
TINGA, J.:
There is little difficult3 on the part of the !ourt in upholdin, the rulin,s challen,ed in this
Petition for Revie. and confir0in, the findin, that private respondents in this case .ere
ille,all3 dis0issed. 8urther, it is clear that private respondents should be a.arded full
bac:.a,es, an entitle0ent denied the0 even as the3 .ere ,ranted separation pa3 in
lieu of reinstate0ent. ?e affir0, subEect to 0odification on the 0atter of bac:.a,es.
Petitioner Pepito Velasco "Velasco$ is the o.ner&0ana,er of Modern 8urniture
Manufacturin, "Modern 8urniture$.
#
Private respondent rnesto Ta3a, .as hired as a
carpenter b3 Velasco and Modern 8urniture in #*-+, .hile his relatives, co&private
respondents %ntonio Ta3a, and Rodolfo Ta3a,, .ere hired in the sa0e capacit3 in
#*B). %ll three .ere paid on a piece&rate basis.
1

%ccordin, to the Ta3a,s, in #**+, Velasco and Modern 8urniture started la3in, off
.or:ers due to business losses, albeit .ith the pro0ise to the dis0issed .or:ers that
the3 .ould be rehired should the business a,ain prosper. Purportedl3, %ntonio and
rnesto Ta3a, .ere laid off in Dece0ber of #***, .hile Rodolfo Ta3a, .as dis0issed in
Ma3 of 1))).
=
%ll three filed co0plaints for ille,al dis0issal a,ainst Modern 8urniture
and Velasco .ith the National /abor Relations !o00ission, Re,ional %rbitration 7ranch
No. III, based in San 8ernando, Pa0pan,a.
4
The Ta3a,s sou,ht separation pa3 in lieu
of reinstate0ent, as .ell as #=th 0onth pa3, holida3 pa3, overti0e pa3, and e@e0plar3
da0a,es.
(

Velasco and Modern 8urniture have a different version. The3 clai0ed that .hile the3
had indeed suffered business losses in #**+, causin, the0 to la3 off so0e .or:ers,
the3 subseHuentl3 a,reed .ith their e0plo3ees, includin, the Ta3a,s, to pa3 .a,es on
a piece&rate basis. In the first part of the 3ear 1))), rnesto Ta3a, ine@plicabl3 stopped
reportin, to .or:. In 2une of that 3ear, %ntonio and Rodolfo Ta3a, also stopped
reportin, for .or:.
-
Velasco clai0ed that he ne@t heard fro0 the three .hen he .as
served su00ons in the instant case.
B
It .as thus ar,ued that the Ta3a,s .ere not
actuall3 ter0inated, but instead had abandoned their .or:.
%fter the co0plaints of the Ta3a,s .ere consolidated, /abor %rbiter duardo 2. !arpio
rendered a Decision dated #( Septe0ber 1))) dis0issin, the co0plaints for ille,al
dis0issal. The /abor %rbiter reasoned that since Velasco and Modern 8urniture had
denied ter0inatin, the e0plo3ees in the first place, the burden fell upon the Ta3a,s to
prove b3 substantial evidence that the3 .ere actuall3 ter0inated.
+
The /abor %rbiter
concluded that the contentions of the Ta3a,s of dis0issal .ere unsubstantiated, and
thus he dis0issed the co0plaints.
On appeal, the N/R! set aside the Decision of the /abor %rbiter in its Resolution dated
1- March 1))1.
*
The N/R! held that the /abor %rbiter had 0isappreciated the facts of
the case. It .as noted that Velasco and Modern 8urniture had ad0itted that since the
Ta3a,s .ere paid on a per piece basis, the3 .ere not reHuired to ,o to the .or: place.
In fact, the Ta3a,s .ere onl3 reHuired to report for .or: .hen ne. Eob orders ca0e in
and the3 .ere called upon b3 Velasco and Modern 8urniture. The N/R! found that
there .as no instance fro0 the evidence adduced .herein Velasco or Modern 8urniture
called upon the Ta3a,s to report for .or:.
#)
8ro0 these facts, the N/R! concluded that
the Ta3a,s had not reported to the pre0ises of Modern 8urniture si0pl3 because the3
.ere not ,iven an3 .or:, as in fact the3 had actuall3 been dis0issed. Thus, the N/R!
did not a,ree .ith the contention that the Ta3a,s had abandoned .or:, and concluded
instead that the3 .ere entitled to separation pa3 in lieu of reinstate0ent. Nonetheless,
the other 0onetar3 clai0s of the Ta3a,s .ere dis0issed for lac: of 0erit.
##

Velasco filed a Petition for !ertiorari and Prohibition .ith the !ourt of %ppeals, assailin,
the Resolution of the N/R!. In a Decision
#1
dated =) Septe0ber 1))=, the !ourt of
%ppeals sustained the N/R! and dis0issed the petition. The appellate court a,reed
that it .as Velasco, as e0plo3er, .ho had the burden to prove that the ter0ination .as
for Eust or authori<ed causes, and that Velasco had failed to overco0e such burden.
#=

The !ourt of %ppeals also dee0ed the a.ard of separation pa3 as proper, .ith the
findin, of ille,al dis0issal and separation pa3 bein, a proper alternative re0ed3 should
reinstate0ent be no lon,er possible.
#4

Hence this petition, brou,ht forth after the !ourt of %ppeals had denied Velasco5s
Motion for Reconsideration.
#(
The cru@ of Velasco5s ar,u0ents before this !ourt rests
on one sentence in the Resolution of the N/R!, .hich states6
Vie.ed in this li,ht, the relief available to co0plainants&appellants is reinstate0ent
.ithout bac:.a,es t:ere be="> "o ;:oA="> !<;o t:!t t:ere A!; =<<e>!< #=;B=;;!<.
#-

Velasco ar,ues that since the N/R! had concluded that there .as no ille,al dis0issal,
the !ourt of %ppeals erred in concludin, instead that the Ta3a,s .ere ille,all3
dis0issed.
#B
8ro0 the sa0e pre0ise, Velasco also clai0s that the !ourt of %ppeals also
erred in ,rantin, separation pa3, considerin, the alle,ed findin, of the N/R! that there
.as no ille,al dis0issal.
#+

The proper perspective should be asserted. This bein, an appeal b3 certiorari under
Rule 4( fro0 a decision of the !ourt of %ppeals, the petitioner 0ust be able to establish
an error of la. i0putable to the !ourt of %ppeals, since it is the decision of that court
that is pri0aril3 revie.ed b3 this !ourt. In short, the petitioner 0ust sta:e the petition on
the position that in error .as the !ourt of %ppeals itself, rather than the a,encies belo..
In the case at bar, Velasco clai0s that the !ourt of %ppeals erred in rulin, that the
Ta3a,s .ere ille,all3 dis0issed because the N/R! had purportedl3 concluded
other.ise. ?e are not persuaded.
?e have e@a0ined the entiret3 of the Resolution of the N/R!, as .ell as the
controversial sentence. The phrase Athere bein, no sho.in, also that there .as ille,al
dis0issalA is clearl3 off&tan,ent .ith the rest of the Resolution, as .ell as the dispositive
portion thereof.
The Resolution of the N/R! is ei,ht "+$ pa,es lon,. It devoted the first four "4$ pa,es to
the factual narrative and a su00ar3 of the rulin, of the /abor %rbiter. The Resolution
then proceeded to discuss the position of the /abor %rbiter that .ith Velasco5s counter&
alle,ation of abandon0ent the burden of proof shifted to the Ta3a,s to establish b3
substantial evidence that the3 .ere ter0inated b3 Velasco. On this point, the N/R!
concluded that AMthe Ta3a,s5 opposin,N contention has 0erit.A
#*
The N/R! then
proceeded to cite the le,al doctrines on abandon0ent, includin, a state0ent that the
burden of proof .as on the e0plo3er to sho. an uneHuivocal intent on the part of the
e0plo3ee to discontinue e0plo30ent.
1)

?e no. Huote the ne@t three pa,es of the Resolution, cul0inatin, in the para,raph
containin, the controverted passa,e6
In this case, co0plainants&appellants %ntonio and rnesto Ta3a, contend that the3
.ere laid off in Dece0ber #***, .hile co0plainant&appellant Rodolfo Ta3a, .as laid&off
in Ma3, 1))) and that respondents&appellees pro0ised to recall the0 as soon as
business ,ets better. On the other hand, respondents&appellants contend that
co0plainant&appellant rnesto Ta3a, voluntaril3 did not co0e to the .or: pre0ises for
about si@ "-$ 0onths or since 8ebruar3, 1)))J that in 2une, 1))), co0plainants&
appellants %ntonio and Rodolfo Ta3a, li:e.ise for no apparent reason failed to report at
respondents&appellees5 pre0ises. Moreover, respondents&appellees repeatedl3 assert
that6
A%pparentl3, co0plainants&appellants are bein, paid on a per piece basis and not
reHuired to ,o to the .or: place, the3 have the libert3 to ,o or not to ,o to the .or:
place and therefore, the3 cannot clai0 to have been ille,all3 dis0issed if respondent&
appellee does not notif3 or call the0 for .or:. It should also be noted that the
co0plainants&appellants .or: is based on orders received b3 the respondent&appellee,
thus, if there are no .or: orders, the3 have no .or:. 8urther0ore, herein co0plainants&
appellants are not the onl3 .or:ers en,a,ed b3 herein respondent&appellee, thus .or:
orders are usuall3 divided a0on, the0 and if there are onl3 fe. orders, other .or:ers
.ould have no .or:.A "p. ((, Records$
FroB t:e ?ore>o=">, =t =; c<e!r t:!t coB@<!="!"t;*!@@e<<!"t; o"<( >o to AorD A:e"
t:ere !re or#er; t:!t "ee# to be #o"e !"# A:e" t:e( !re c!<<e# 8@o" b(
re;@o"#e"t;*!@@e<<ee;. T:e c:o=ce to c!<< coB@<!="!"t;*!@@e<<!"t; re;t; o"
re;@o"#e"t;*!@@e<<ee;, ;o t:e <!tter :!; "o b!;=; to coB@<!=" t:!t coB@<!="!"t;*
!@@e<<!"t; ?!=<e# to !@@e!r !t t:e AorD @reB=;e;. FroB t:e eE=#e"ce !##8ce#,
t:ere A!; "o =";t!"ce A:ere re;@o"#e"t;*!@@e<<ee; c!<<e# 8@o" coB@<!="!"t;*
!@@e<<!"t; to re@ort ?or AorD bec!8;e t:ere !re or#er; to be #o"e !"# t:e <!tter
re?8;e#. -:!t re;@o"#e"t;*!@@e<<ee; !re Bere<( ;!(="> =; t:!t coB@<!="!"t;*
!@@e<<!"t; :!# Eo<8"t!r=<( ?!=<e# to >o to t:e @reB=;e;. C<e!r<(, t:e re!;o" A:(
coB@<!="!"t;*!@@e<<!"t; #o "ot !@@e!r !t t:e AorD @reB=;e; =; t:e ?!ct t:!t t:e(
!re "ot c!<<e# 8@o" to #o AorD @8r;8!"t to t:e=r !<<e>e# !>reeBe"t o? @!(="> b(
@!(Be"t r!te b!;=;. It =; 8"#=;@8te# t:!t ;="ce e!r<( 2000, coB@<!="!"t*!@@e<<!"t
Er"e;to T!(!> A!; "ot >=Ee" AorD A:=<e coB@<!="!"t;*!@@e<<!"t; A"to"=o !"#
Ro#o<?o
T!(!> Aere "ot !<;o >=Ee" AorD ;="ce M!(, 2000. +e"ce, coB@<!="!"t;*!@@e<<!"t;
be<=eEe# !"# co"c<8#e# t:!t t:e( Aere <!=# o??. Havin, .or:ed for 0ore than thirt3
"=)$ 3ears .ith respondents&appellees, %ntonio Ta3a, and rnesto Ta3a, are both fift3&
five "(($ 3ears of a,e .hile Rodolfo Ta3a, is fort3&si@ "4-$ 3ears old. ?e can thus safel3
conclude that another reason .h3 respondents&appellants do not call upon the0 to
.or: is because of their havin, beco0e old. er=<(, re;@o"#e"t;*!@@e<<ee;G !;;ert=o"
t:!t coB@<!="!"t;*!@@e<<!"t; !b!"#o"e# t:e=r AorD :!Ee "o ?!ct8!< b!;=;. -e
"ote t:!t eEe" #8r="> t:e :e!r="> o? t:=; c!;e 8"t=< t:e %ec=;=o" A!; =;;8e#, t:ere
:!; bee" "o o??er o? AorD B!#e b( re;@o"#e"t;*!@@e<<ee; to coB@<!="!"t;*
!@@e<<!"t;.
=eAe# =" t:=; <=>:t, t:e re<=e? !E!=<!b<e to coB@<!="!"t;*!@@e<<!"t; =;
re=";t!teBe"t A=t:o8t b!cDA!>e; t:ere be="> "o ;:oA="> !<;o t:!t t:ere A!;
=<<e>!< #=;B=;;!<. Ho.ever, it is clear that respondents&appellees are no lon,er
interested in callin, co0plainants&appellants bac: to .or: because of the financial
difficult3 of the business and that co0plainants&appellants on the other hand, are as:in,
for separation pa3. Such bein, the case, separation pa3 in lieu of reinstate0ent .ithout
bac:.a,es is the proper relief in the instant case.
1#

Readin, the entire Resolution, it is be3ond doubt that the N/R! concluded that Velasco
had failed to establish that the Ta3a,s had abandoned their e0plo30ent. Such
conclusion is crucial, Velasco5s defense a,ainst the char,e of ille,al dis0issal bein,
that the Ta3a,s had actuall3 abandoned their e0plo30ent, .hich is reco,ni<ed in
Eurisprudence as a for0 of ne,lect of dut3 one of the Eust causes for dis0issal under
%rticle 1+1 of the /abor !ode.
11
The disHuisition is also relevant, as it debun:s the
/abor %rbiter5s contention that it fell upon the Ta3a,s to establish that the3 had been
ille,all3 dis0issed. Instead, the N/R! correctl3 held that the burden .as upon Velasco
to substantiate his clai0 that the Ta3a,s had abandoned their e0plo30ent.
8urther, the N/R! concluded that the Ta3a,s had stopped reportin, to the pre0ises of
Modern 8urniture because Velasco and Modern 8urniture had stopped assi,nin, the0
.or:. !onsiderin, that the Ta3a,s .ere paid on a per&piece basis, it necessaril3
follo.ed that the3 stopped receivin, inco0e as .ell. The N/R! even ha<arded a theor3
that Velasco had stopped ,ivin, the Ta3a,s .or: because of their a,e. Thus, the N/R!
stated6 AVeril3, respondents&appellees5 assertion that co0plainants&appellants
abandoned their .or: have no factual basis.A
1=

'iven the conte@t of the precedin, discussion, .hich illustrated that the Ta3a,s .ere
not ,uilt3 of abandon0ent, there is no le,al basis .hatsoever for the conclusion that
Athere .as no sho.in, @ @ @ that there .as ille,al dis0issal.A It is not clear .h3 the
N/R! stated that there .as Ano sho.in, also that there .as ille,al dis0issalA .hen its
precedin, discussion so obviousl3 pointed to the contrar3. Fet .hen it is clear that the
cited passa,e cannot stand .ith the rest of the decision, includin, the dispositive
portion, the !ourt cannot obviousl3 confer bindin, effect on the conclusion that there
.as no ille,al dis0issal, as it runs contrar3 a,ainst the ,rain of the rest of the
Resolution.
Indeed, the dispositive portion of the Resolution clearl3 supports the pre0ise that the
Ta3a,s .ere ille,all3 dis0issed, there bein, an a.ard of separation pa3 in lieu of
reinstate0ent.
?HR8OR, pre0ises considered, the appeal is partl3 'R%NTD and the Decision
dated #( Septe0ber 1))) findin, that co0plainants&appellants si0pl3 did not report for
.or: or .ere the ones .ho abandoned their .or: is hereb3 ordered ST %SID. % ne.
Decision is hereb3 issued orderin, respondents&appellees to a.ard co0plainants&
appellants separation pa3 in lieu of reinstate0ent co0puted at one&half "#C1$ 0onth pa3
for ever3 3ear of service co0puted as follo.s6
#$ %ntonio Ta3a,
Separation Pa36
8ro0 #*B) to Ma3 1))) O =) 3rs.
P#,1)).)) @ 4 .:s @ =) 3rs. @ P 0o. PB1,))).))
1$ rnesto Ta3a,
Separation Pa36
8ro0 #*-+ to Dec. #*** I =# 3rs.
P#,()).)) @ 4 .:s. Q =# 3rs. @ P 0o. P*=,))).))
=$ Rodolfo Ta3a,
Separation Pa36
8ro0 #*B) to Ma3 1))) O =) 3rs.
P#,()).)) @ 4 .:s. @ =) 3rs. @ P 0o. P *),))).))
'R%ND TOT%/ P 1((,))).))
SO ORDRD.
14

>nder %rticle 1B* of the /abor !ode, an e0plo3ee unEustl3 dis0issed fro0 .or: is
entitled to reinstate0ent and bac:.a,es, a0on, others. Ho.ever, it has lon, been
reco,ni<ed that if reinstate0ent is no lon,er possible or practicable, the e0plo3er 0a3
be 0ade instead to pa3 separation pa3 to the e0plo3ee in lieu of reinstate0ent.
1(
The
dispositive portion of the Resolution is consistent .ith the pre0ise that the Ta3a,s .ere
entitled to reinstate0ent b3 reason of their ille,al dis0issal, but the3 could receive
instead separation pa3 in lieu of reinstate0ent if reinstate0ent is no lon,er practicable.
The dispositive portion does not he. to a 0indset that the Ta3a,s .ere not ille,all3
dis0issed, the thin:in, .hich Velasco .ishes to ascribe on the N/R!. It is derived
instead fro0 the conclusion that the Ta3a,s .ere ille,all3 dis0issed, a conclusion that
0a3 contradict the cited passa,e of the N/R! Resolution, but not the tenor and findin,s
of the Resolution in its entiret3.
Other than the erroneous contention that the N/R! had concluded that there .as no
ille,al dis0issal, Velasco5s onl3 re0ainin, ar,u0ent is that the pa30ent of separation
pa3 .as A0isplaced, since no evidence as to the necessit3 thereof .as presented.A
Velasco cites the !ourt5s co00ent in )ui*ano v. Mercury #rug Corp.
1-
that Athe doctrine
of strained relations should be strictl3 construed @ @ @ ver3 labor dispute al0ost al.a3s
results in Dstrained relations5, and the phrase cannot be ,iven an over&archin,
interpretation @ @ @ @
1B

In )ui*ano, it .as the e0plo3er .ho .as see:in, that the e0plo3ee be ,ranted
separation pa3 instead of reinstate0ent, .hile in this case Velasco consistentl3 ar,ued
a,ainst the a.ard of separation pa3. Of course, follo.in, Velasco5s lo,ic, the Ta3a,s
should instead be reinstated. Nonetheless, the !ourt finds no reason to disturb the
rulin, that the Ta3a,s should be a.arded separation pa3 in lieu of reinstate0ent. The
cited re0ar:s of the !ourt in )ui*ano .ere 0ade in the conte@t of pointin, out that
AMsNo0e unscrupulous e0plo3ers @ @ @ have ta:en advanta,e of the over,ro.th of this
doctrine of Dstrained relations5 b3 usin, it as a cover to ,et rid of its e0plo3ees and thus
defeat their ri,ht to Eob securit3.A
1+

The accepted doctrine is that separation pa3 0a3 avail in lieu of reinstate0ent if
reinstate0ent is no lon,er practical or in the best interest of the parties.
1*
Separation
pa3 in lieu of reinstate0ent 0a3 li:e.ise be a.arded if the e0plo3ee decides not to be
reinstated.
=)
It is not controverted that Modern 8urniture has under,one financial
hardship, and that the Ta3a,s had opted to see: separation pa3 in lieu of reinstate0ent.
?e defer to the findin,s of the N/R!, as affir0ed b3 the !ourt of %ppeals and
authori<ed under Eurisprudence, that separation pa3 in lieu of reinstate0ent is .arranted
in this case.
8inall3, the Ta3a,s ar,ue in their Me0orandu0 before this !ourt that the N/R! and
!ourt of %ppeals had erred in not a.ardin, the0 full bac:.a,es.
=#
The N/R!, .hile
a.ardin, separation pa3 to the Ta3a,s, held that the3 had failed to establish sufficient
factual basis for their other 0onetar3 clai0s.
=1
The !ourt of %ppeals re0ained silent on
that aspect.
The Ta3a,s are correct in pointin, out that the3 are entitled to full bac:.a,es b3 reason
of their ille,al dis0issal, not.ithstandin, the a.ard of separation pa3. The !ourt 0ade
this point clear in Santos v. +,-C.
==

The nor0al conseHuences of a findin, that an e0plo3ee has been ille,all3 dis0issed
are, firstl3, that the e0plo3ee beco0es entitled to reinstate0ent to his for0er position
.ithout loss of seniorit3 ri,hts and, secondl3, the pa30ent of bac:.a,es correspondin,
to the period fro0 his ille,al dis0issal up to actual reinstate0ent. The statutor3 intent on
this 0atter is clearl3 discernible. Reinstate0ent restores the e0plo3ee .ho .as unEustl3
dis0issed to the position fro0 .hich he .as re0oved, that is, to his status Huo ante
dis0issal, .hile the ,rant of bac:.a,es allo.s the sa0e e0plo3ee to recover fro0 the
e0plo3er that .hich he had lost b3 .a3 of .a,es as a result of his dis0issal. These
t.in re0ediesRreinstate0ent and pa30ent of bac:.a,esR0a:e the dis0issed
e0plo3ee .hole .ho can then loo: for.ard to continued e0plo30ent. Thus do these
t.o re0edies ,ive 0eanin, and substance to the constitutional ri,ht of labor to securit3
of tenure. T:e tAo ?orB; o? re<=e? !re #=;t="ct !"# ;e@!r!te, o"e ?roB t:e ot:er.
T:o8>: t:e >r!"t o? re=";t!teBe"t coBBo"<( c!rr=e; A=t: =t !" !A!r# o?
b!cDA!>e;, t:e ="!@@ro@r=!te"e;; or "o"*!E!=<!b=<=t( o? o"e #oe; "ot c!rr( A=t: =t
t:e ="!@@ro@r=!te"e;; or "o"*!E!=<!b=<=t( o? t:e ot:er. Separation pa3 .as a.arded
in favor of petitioner /3dia Santos because the N/R! found that her reinstate0ent .as
no lon,er feasible or appropriate. %s the ter0 su,,ests, separation pa3 is the a0ount
that an e0plo3ee receives at the ti0e of his severance fro0 the service and, as
correctl3 noted b3 the Solicitor 'eneral in his !o00ent, is desi,ned to provide the
e0plo3ee .ith Athe .here.ithal durin, the period that he is loo:in, for another
e0plo30ent.A I" t:e =";t!"t c!;e, t:e >r!"t o? ;e@!r!t=o" @!( A!; ! ;8b;t=t8te ?or
=BBe#=!te !"# co"t="8e# re*eB@<o(Be"t A=t: t:e @r=E!te
re;@o"#e"t &!"D. T:e >r!"t o? ;e@!r!t=o" @!( #=# "ot re#re;; t:e ="H8r( t:!t =;
="te"#e# to be re<=eEe# b( t:e ;eco"# reBe#( o? b!cDA!>e;, t:!t =;, t:e <o;; o?
e!r"=">; t:!t Ao8<# :!Ee !ccr8e# to t:e #=;B=;;e# eB@<o(ee #8r="> t:e @er=o#
betAee" #=;B=;;!< !"# re=";t!teBe"t. P8t ! <=tt<e #=??ere"t<(, @!(Be"t o?
b!cDA!>e; =; ! ?orB o? re<=e? t:!t re;tore; t:e ="coBe t:!t A!; <o;t b( re!;o" o?
8"<!A?8< #=;B=;;!<I ;e@!r!t=o" @!(, =" co"tr!;t, =; or=e"te# toA!r#; t:e =BBe#=!te
?8t8re, t:e tr!";=t=o"!< @er=o# t:e #=;B=;;e# eB@<o(ee B8;t 8"#er>o be?ore
<oc!t="> ! re@<!ceBe"t Hob. It .as ,rievous error a0ountin, to ,rave abuse of
discretion on the part of the N/R! to have considered an a.ard of separation pa3 as
eHuivalent to the a,,re,ate relief constituted b3 reinstate0ent plus pa30ent of
bac:.a,es under %rticle 1+) of the /abor !ode. T:e >r!"t o? ;e@!r!t=o" @!( A!; !
@ro@er ;8b;t=t8te o"<( ?or re=";t!teBe"tI =t co8<# "ot be !" !#eJ8!te ;8b;t=t8te
bot: ?or re=";t!teBe"t !"# ?or b!cDA!>e;. In effect, the N/R! in its assailed
decision failed to ,ive to petitioner the full relief to .hich she .as entitled under the
statute.
=4
"0phasis supplied$
The Santos rule has been repeatedl3 affir0ed b3 this !ourt, and 0ust be applied to this
case.
=(
ven assu0in, that the Ta3a,s had not adduced an3 evidence to establish the
a0ount of bac:.a,es to be paid, it cannot be denied that under the la., particularl3
%rticle 1B* of the /abor !ode, the3 are entitled to bac:.a,es as a 0atter of ri,ht, o.in,
to their ille,al dis0issal. Hence, the N/R! and the !ourt of %ppeals erred in not
a.ardin, bac:.a,es as .ell.
Ho.ever, the !ourt reco,ni<es that there 0a3 be so0e difficult3 in ascertainin, the
proper a0ount of bac:.a,es, considerin, that the Ta3a,s .ere apparentl3 paid on a
piece&rate basis. In ,abor Congress of the Philippines v. +,-C,
=-
the !ourt .as
confronted .ith a situation
.herein several .or:ers paid on a piece&rate basis .ere entitled to bac: .a,es b3
reason of ille,al dis0issal. Ho.ever, the !ourt noted that as the piece&rate .or:ers had
been paid b3 the piece, Athere M.asN a need to deter0ine the var3in, de,rees of
production and da3s .or:ed b3 each .or:er,A and that Athis issue is best left to the
MN/R!N.A
=B
?e believe the sa0e result should obtain in this case, and the N/R! be
tas:ed to conduct the proper deter0ination of the appropriate a0ount of bac:.a,es
due to each of the Ta3a,s.
=+

Nonetheless, even as the case should be re0anded to the N/R! for the proper
deter0ination of bac:.a,es, nothin, in this decision should be construed in a 0anner
that .ould i0pede the a.ard of separation pa3 to the Ta3a,s as previousl3 rendered b3
the N/R!, and affir0ed b3 the !ourt of %ppeals.
?HR8OR, the Petition is DNID. The Resolution of the National /abor Relations
!o00ission dated 1- March 1))1 and the Decision of the !ourt of %ppeals dated =)
Septe0ber 1))= are %88IRMD, .ith the MODI8I!%TION that bac:.a,es shall be
a.arded to respondents in such a0ounts as shall be deter0ined b3 the National /abor
Relations !o00ission. In this re,ard, the case is hereb3 RM%NDD to the National
/abor Relations !o00ission for the deter0ination of the bac: .a,es due respondents,
confor0abl3 .ith this Decision. Said !o00ission is further DIR!TD TO RSO/V
the issue of bac:.a,es .ithin si@t3 "-)$ da3s fro0 its receipt of a cop3 of this Decision
and of the records of the case and to sub0it to this !ourt a report of its co0pliance
here.ith .ithin ten "#)$ da3s fro0 the rendition of its resolution. !osts a,ainst
petitioner.
SO ORDRD.
%ANTE O. TINGA
%ssociate Justice
? !ON!>R6
LEONAR%O A. 5UISUM&ING
%ssociate Justice
!hair0an
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
%ssociate 2ustice
CONC+ITA CARPIO MORALES
%sscociate 2ustice
PRES&ITERO 1. ELASCO, 1R.
%ssociate 2ustice
% T T S T % T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case .as assi,ned to the .riter of the opinion of the !ourt5s Division.
LEONAR%O A. 5UISUM&ING
%ssociate 2ustice
!hair0an, Third Division
! R T I 8 I ! % T I O N
Pursuant to Section #=, %rticle VIII of the !onstitution, and the Division !hair0an5s
%ttestation, it is hereb3 certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case .as assi,ned to the .riter of the opinion of the
!ourt5s Division.
ARTEMIO . PANGANI&AN
!hief 2ustice
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
N 7%N!
G.R. No. 1786') NoEeBber 19, 2004
1ENN2 M. AGA&ON !"# IRGILIO C. AGA&ON, petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LA&OR RELATIONS COMMISSION /NLRC0, RIIERA +OME
IMPROEMENTS, INC. !"# ICENTE ANGELES, respondents.
%ECISION
2NARES*SANTIAGO, J.6
This petition for revie. see:s to reverse the decision
#
of the !ourt of %ppeals dated
2anuar3 1=, 1))=, in !%&'.R. SP No. -=)#B, 0odif3in, the decision of National /abor
Relations !o00ission "N/R!$ in N/R!&N!R !ase No. )1=441&)).
Private respondent Riviera Ho0e I0prove0ents, Inc. is en,a,ed in the business of
sellin, and installin, orna0ental and construction 0aterials. It e0plo3ed petitioners
Vir,ilio %,abon and 2enn3 %,abon as ,3psu0 board and cornice installers on 2anuar3
1, #**1
1
until 8ebruar3 1=, #*** .hen the3 .ere dis0issed for abandon0ent of .or:.
Petitioners then filed a co0plaint for ille,al dis0issal and pa30ent of 0one3 clai0s
=
and
on Dece0ber 1+, #***, the /abor %rbiter rendered a decision declarin, the dis0issals
ille,al and ordered private respondent to pa3 the 0onetar3 clai0s. The dispositive
portion of the decision states6
?HR8OR, pre0ises considered, ?e find the ter0ination of the
co0plainants ille,al. %ccordin,l3, respondent is hereb3 ordered to pa3
the0 their bac:.a,es up to Nove0ber 1*, #*** in the su0 of6
#. 2enn3 M. %,abon & P(-, 1=#.*=
1. Vir,ilio !. %,abon & (-, 1=#.*=
and, in lieu of reinstate0ent to pa3 the0 their separation pa3 of one "#$
0onth for ever3 3ear of service fro0 date of hirin, up to Nove0ber 1*,
#***.
Respondent is further ordered to pa3 the co0plainants their holida3 pa3
and service incentive leave pa3 for the 3ears #**-, #**B and #**+ as .ell
as their pre0iu0 pa3 for holida3s and rest da3s and Vir,ilio %,abonKs #=th
0onth pa3 differential a0ountin, to T?O THO>S%ND ON H>NDRD
8I8TF "P1,#().))$ Pesos, or the a,,re,ate a0ount of ON H>NDRD
T?NTF ON THO>S%ND SIQ H>NDRD SVNTF I'HT S *=C#))
"P#1#,-B+.*=$ Pesos for 2enn3 %,abon, and ON H>NDRD T?NTF
THR THO>S%ND I'HT H>NDRD T?NTF I'HT S *=C#))
"P#1=,+1+.*=$ Pesos for Vir,ilio %,abon, as per attached co0putation of
2ulieta !. Nicolas, OI!, Research and !o0putation >nit, N!R.
SO ORDRD.
4
On appeal, the N/R! reversed the /abor %rbiter because it found that the petitioners
had abandoned their .or:, and .ere not entitled to bac:.a,es and separation pa3. The
other 0one3 clai0s a.arded b3 the /abor %rbiter .ere also denied for lac: of
evidence.
(
>pon denial of their 0otion for reconsideration, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari
.ith the !ourt of %ppeals.
The !ourt of %ppeals in turn ruled that the dis0issal of the petitioners .as not ille,al
because the3 had abandoned their e0plo30ent but ordered the pa30ent of 0one3
clai0s. The dispositive portion of the decision reads6
?HR8OR, the decision of the National /abor Relations !o00ission
is RVRSD onl3 insofar as it dis0issed petitionerKs 0one3 clai0s.
Private respondents are ordered to pa3 petitioners holida3 pa3 for four "4$
re,ular holida3s in #**-, #**B, and #**+, as .ell as their service incentive
leave pa3 for said 3ears, and to pa3 the balance of petitioner Vir,ilio
%,abonKs #=th 0onth pa3 for #**+ in the a0ount of P1,#().)).
SO ORDRD.
-
Hence, this petition for revie. on the sole issue of .hether petitioners .ere ille,all3
dis0issed.
B
Petitioners assert that the3 .ere dis0issed because the private respondent refused to
,ive the0 assi,n0ents unless the3 a,reed to .or: on a .pa/yaw. basis .hen the3
reported for dut3 on 8ebruar3 1=, #***. The3 did not a,ree on this arran,e0ent
because it .ould 0ean losin, benefits as Social Securit3 S3ste0 "SSS$ 0e0bers.
Petitioners also clai0 that private respondent did not co0pl3 .ith the t.in reHuire0ents
of notice and hearin,.
+
Private respondent, on the other hand, 0aintained that petitioners .ere not dis0issed
but had abandoned their .or:.
*
In fact, private respondent sent t.o letters to the last
:no.n addresses of the petitioners advisin, the0 to report for .or:. Private
respondentKs 0ana,er even tal:ed to petitioner Vir,ilio %,abon b3 telephone so0eti0e
in 2une #*** to tell hi0 about the ne. assi,n0ent at Pacific Pla<a To.ers involvin,
4),))) sHuare 0eters of cornice installation .or:. Ho.ever, petitioners did not report for
.or: because the3 had subcontracted to perfor0 installation .or: for another co0pan3.
Petitioners also de0anded for an increase in their .a,e to P1+).)) per da3. ?hen this
.as not ,ranted, petitioners stopped reportin, for .or: and filed the ille,al dis0issal
case.
#)
It is .ell&settled that findin,s of fact of Huasi&Eudicial a,encies li:e the N/R! are
accorded not onl3 respect but even finalit3 if the findin,s are supported b3 substantial
evidence. This is especiall3 so .hen such findin,s .ere affir0ed b3 the !ourt of
%ppeals.
##
Ho.ever, if the factual findin,s of the N/R! and the /abor %rbiter are
conflictin,, as in this case, the revie.in, court 0a3 delve into the records and e@a0ine
for itself the Huestioned findin,s.
#1
%ccordin,l3, the !ourt of %ppeals, after a careful revie. of the facts, ruled that
petitionersK dis0issal .as for a Eust cause. The3 had abandoned their e0plo30ent and
.ere alread3 .or:in, for another e0plo3er.
To dis0iss an e0plo3ee, the la. reHuires not onl3 the e@istence of a Eust and valid
cause but also enEoins the e0plo3er to ,ive the e0plo3ee the opportunit3 to be heard
and to defend hi0self.
#=
%rticle 1+1 of the /abor !ode enu0erates the Eust causes for
ter0ination b3 the e0plo3er6 "a$ serious 0isconduct or .illful disobedience b3 the
e0plo3ee of the la.ful orders of his e0plo3er or the latterKs representative in connection
.ith the e0plo3eeKs .or:J "b$ ,ross and habitual ne,lect b3 the e0plo3ee of his dutiesJ
"c$ fraud or .illful breach b3 the e0plo3ee of the trust reposed in hi0 b3 his e0plo3er or
his dul3 authori<ed representativeJ "d$ co00ission of a cri0e or offense b3 the
e0plo3ee a,ainst the person of his e0plo3er or an3 i00ediate 0e0ber of his fa0il3 or
his dul3 authori<ed representativeJ and "e$ other causes analo,ous to the fore,oin,.
%bandon0ent is the deliberate and unEustified refusal of an e0plo3ee to resu0e his
e0plo30ent.
#4
It is a for0 of ne,lect of dut3, hence, a Eust cause for ter0ination of
e0plo30ent b3 the e0plo3er.
#(
8or a valid findin, of abandon0ent, these t.o factors
should be present6 "#$ the failure to report for .or: or absence .ithout valid or Eustifiable
reasonJ and "1$ a clear intention to sever e0plo3er&e0plo3ee relationship, .ith the
second as the 0ore deter0inative factor .hich is 0anifested b3 overt acts fro0 .hich it
0a3 be deduced that the e0plo3ees has no 0ore intention to .or:. The intent to
discontinue the e0plo30ent 0ust be sho.n b3 clear proof that it .as deliberate and
unEustified.
#-
In 8ebruar3 #***, petitioners .ere freHuentl3 absent havin, subcontracted for an
installation .or: for another co0pan3. Subcontractin, for another co0pan3 clearl3
sho.ed the intention to sever the e0plo3er&e0plo3ee relationship .ith private
respondent. This .as not the first ti0e the3 did this. In 2anuar3 #**-, the3 did not report
for .or: because the3 .ere .or:in, for another co0pan3. Private respondent at that
ti0e .arned petitioners that the3 .ould be dis0issed if this happened a,ain. Petitioners
disre,arded the .arnin, and e@hibited a clear intention to sever their e0plo3er&
e0plo3ee relationship. The record of an e0plo3ee is a relevant consideration in
deter0inin, the penalt3 that should be 0eted out to hi0.
#B
In Sandoval Shipyard v. Clave,
#+
.e held that an e0plo3ee .ho deliberatel3 absented
fro0 .or: .ithout leave or per0ission fro0 his e0plo3er, for the purpose of loo:in, for
a Eob else.here, is considered to have abandoned his Eob. ?e should appl3 that rule
.ith 0ore reason here .here petitioners .ere absent because the3 .ere alread3
.or:in, in another co0pan3.
The la. i0poses 0an3 obli,ations on the e0plo3er such as providin, Eust
co0pensation to .or:ers, observance of the procedural reHuire0ents of notice and
hearin, in the ter0ination of e0plo30ent. On the other hand, the la. also reco,ni<es
the ri,ht of the e0plo3er to e@pect fro0 its .or:ers not onl3 ,ood perfor0ance,
adeHuate .or: and dili,ence, but also ,ood conduct
#*
and lo3alt3. The e0plo3er 0a3
not be co0pelled to continue to e0plo3 such persons .hose continuance in the service
.ill patentl3 be ini0ical to his interests.
1)
%fter establishin, that the ter0inations .ere for a Eust and valid cause, .e no.
deter0ine if the procedures for dis0issal .ere observed.
The procedure for ter0inatin, an e0plo3ee is found in 7oo: VI, Rule I, Section 1"d$ of
the 0mnibus -ules 'mplementing the ,abor Code6
Standards of due process1 re2uirements of notice. I In all cases of
ter0ination of e0plo30ent, the follo.in, standards of due process shall
be substantiall3 observed6
I. 8or ter0ination of e0plo30ent based on Eust causes as defined in
%rticle 1+1 of the !ode6
"a$ % .ritten notice served on the e0plo3ee specif3in, the ,round or
,rounds for ter0ination, and ,ivin, to said e0plo3ee reasonable
opportunit3 .ithin .hich to e@plain his sideJ
"b$ % hearin, or conference durin, .hich the e0plo3ee concerned, .ith
the assistance of counsel if the e0plo3ee so desires, is ,iven opportunit3
to respond to the char,e, present his evidence or rebut the evidence
presented a,ainst hi0J and
"c$ % .ritten notice of ter0ination served on the e0plo3ee indicatin, that
upon due consideration of all the circu0stances, ,rounds have been
established to Eustif3 his ter0ination.
In case of ter0ination, the fore,oin, notices shall be served on the
e0plo3eeKs last :no.n address.
Dis0issals based on Eust causes conte0plate acts or o0issions attributable to the
e0plo3ee .hile dis0issals based on authori<ed causes involve ,rounds under the
/abor !ode .hich allo. the e0plo3er to ter0inate e0plo3ees. % ter0ination for an
authori<ed cause reHuires pa30ent of separation pa3. ?hen the ter0ination of
e0plo30ent is declared ille,al, reinstate0ent and full bac:.a,es are 0andated under
%rticle 1B*. If reinstate0ent is no lon,er possible .here the dis0issal .as unEust,
separation pa3 0a3 be ,ranted.
Procedurall3, "#$ if the dis0issal is based on a Eust cause under %rticle 1+1, the
e0plo3er 0ust ,ive the e0plo3ee t.o .ritten notices and a hearin, or opportunit3 to be
heard if reHuested b3 the e0plo3ee before ter0inatin, the e0plo30ent6 a notice
specif3in, the ,rounds for .hich dis0issal is sou,ht a hearin, or an opportunit3 to be
heard and after hearin, or opportunit3 to be heard, a notice of the decision to dis0issJ
and "1$ if the dis0issal is based on authori<ed causes under %rticles 1+= and 1+4, the
e0plo3er 0ust ,ive the e0plo3ee and the Depart0ent of /abor and 0plo30ent
.ritten notices =) da3s prior to the effectivit3 of his separation.
8ro0 the fore,oin, rules four possible situations 0a3 be derived6 "#$ the dis0issal is for
a Eust cause under %rticle 1+1 of the /abor !ode, for an authori<ed cause under %rticle
1+=, or for health reasons under %rticle 1+4, and due process .as observedJ "1$ the
dis0issal is .ithout Eust or authori<ed cause but due process .as observedJ "=$ the
dis0issal is .ithout Eust or authori<ed cause and there .as no due processJ and "4$ the
dis0issal is for Eust or authori<ed cause but due process .as not observed.
In the first situation, the dis0issal is undoubtedl3 valid and the e0plo3er .ill not suffer
an3 liabilit3.
In the second and third situations .here the dis0issals are ille,al, %rticle 1B* 0andates
that the e0plo3ee is entitled to reinstate0ent .ithout loss of seniorit3 ri,hts and other
privile,es and full bac:.a,es, inclusive of allo.ances, and other benefits or their
0onetar3 eHuivalent co0puted fro0 the ti0e the co0pensation .as not paid up to the
ti0e of actual reinstate0ent.
In the fourth situation, the dis0issal should be upheld. ?hile the procedural infir0it3
cannot be cured, it should not invalidate the dis0issal. Ho.ever, the e0plo3er should
be held liable for noncompliance with the procedural re2uirements of due process.
The present case sHuarel3 falls under the fourth situation. The dis0issal should be
upheld because it .as established that the petitioners abandoned their Eobs to .or: for
another co0pan3. Private respondent, ho.ever, did not follo. the notice reHuire0ents
and instead ar,ued that sendin, notices to the last :no.n addresses .ould have been
useless because the3 did not reside there an30ore. >nfortunatel3 for the private
respondent, this is not a valid e@cuse because the la. 0andates the t.in notice
reHuire0ents to the e0plo3eeKs last :no.n address.
1#
Thus, it should be held liable for
noncompliance with the procedural re2uirements of due process.
% revie. and re&e@a0ination of the relevant le,al principles is appropriate and ti0el3 to
clarif3 the various rulin,s on e0plo30ent ter0ination in the li,ht of Serrano v. +ational
,abor -elations Commission.
11
Prior to #*+*, the rule .as that a dis0issal or ter0ination is ille,al if the e0plo3ee .as
not ,iven an3 notice. In the #*+* case of 3enphil Corp. v. +ational ,abor -elations
Commission,
1=
.e reversed this lon,&standin, rule and held that the dis0issed
e0plo3ee, althou,h not ,iven an3 notice and hearin,, .as not entitled to reinstate0ent
and bac:.a,es because the dis0issal .as for ,rave 0isconduct and insubordination, a
Eust ,round for ter0ination under %rticle 1+1. The e0plo3ee had a violent te0per and
caused trouble durin, office hours, def3in, superiors .ho tried to pacif3 hi0. ?e
concluded that reinstatin, the e0plo3ee and a.ardin, bac:.a,es A0a3 encoura,e hi0
to do even .orse and .ill render a 0oc:er3 of the rules of discipline that e0plo3ees are
reHuired to observe.A
14
?e further held that6
>nder the circu0stances, the dis0issal of the private respondent for Eust
cause should be 0aintained. He has no ri,ht to return to his for0er
e0plo30ent.
Ho.ever, the petitioner 0ust nevertheless be held to account for failure to
e@tend to private respondent his ri,ht to an investi,ation before causin,
his dis0issal. The rule is e@plicit as above discussed. The dis0issal of an
e0plo3ee 0ust be for *ust or authori"ed cause and after due process.
Petitioner co00itted an infraction of the second reHuire0ent. Thus, it
0ust be i0posed a sanction for its failure to ,ive a for0al notice and
conduct an investi,ation as reHuired b3 la. before dis0issin, petitioner
fro0 e0plo30ent. !onsiderin, the circu0stances of this case petitioner
0ust inde0nif3 the private respondent the a0ount of P#,))).)). The
0easure of this a.ard depends on the facts of each case and the ,ravit3
of the o0ission co00itted b3 the e0plo3er.
1(
The rule thus evolved6 .here the e0plo3er had a valid reason to dis0iss an e0plo3ee
but did not follo. the due process reHuire0ent, the dis0issal 0a3 be upheld but the
e0plo3er .ill be penali<ed to pa3 an inde0nit3 to the e0plo3ee. This beca0e :no.n as
the 3enphil or 7elated Due Process Rule.
On 2anuar3 1B, 1))), in Serrano, the rule on the e@tent of the sanction .as chan,ed.
?e held that the violation b3 the e0plo3er of the notice reHuire0ent in ter0ination for
Eust or authori<ed causes .as not a denial of due process that .ill nullif3 the
ter0ination. Ho.ever, the dis0issal is ineffectual and the e0plo3er 0ust pa3 full
bac:.a,es fro0 the ti0e of ter0ination until it is Eudiciall3 declared that the dis0issal
.as for a Eust or authori<ed cause.
The rationale for the re&e@a0ination of the 3enphil doctrine in Serrano .as the
si,nificant nu0ber of cases involvin, dis0issals .ithout reHuisite notices. ?e
concluded that the i0position of penalt3 b3 .a3 of da0a,es for violation of the notice
reHuire0ent .as not servin, as a deterrent. Hence, .e no. reHuired pa30ent of full
bac:.a,es fro0 the ti0e of dis0issal until the ti0e the !ourt finds the dis0issal .as for
a Eust or authori<ed cause.
Serrano .as confrontin, the practice of e0plo3ers to Adis0iss no. and pa3 laterA b3
i0posin, full bac:.a,es.
?e believe, ho.ever, that the rulin, in Serrano did not consider the full 0eanin, of
%rticle 1B* of the /abor !ode .hich states6
%RT. 1B*. Securit3 of Tenure. I In cases of re,ular e0plo30ent, the
e0plo3er shall not ter0inate the services of an e0plo3ee e@cept for a Eust
cause or .hen authori<ed b3 this Title. %n e0plo3ee .ho is unEustl3
dis0issed fro0 .or: shall be entitled to reinstate0ent .ithout loss of
seniorit3 ri,hts and other privile,es and to his full bac:.a,es, inclusive of
allo.ances, and to his other benefits or their 0onetar3 eHuivalent
co0puted fro0 the ti0e his co0pensation .as .ithheld fro0 hi0 up to the
ti0e of his actual reinstate0ent.
This 0eans that the ter0ination is ille,al onl3 if it is not for an3 of the Eustified or
authori<ed causes provided b3 la.. Pa30ent of bac:.a,es and other benefits, includin,
reinstate0ent, is Eustified onl3 if the e0plo3ee .as unEustl3 dis0issed.
The fact that the Serrano rulin, can cause unfairness and inEustice .hich elicited stron,
dissent has pro0pted us to revisit the doctrine.
To be sure, the Due Process !lause in %rticle III, Section # of the !onstitution e0bodies
a s3ste0 of ri,hts based on 0oral principles so deepl3 i0bedded in the traditions and
feelin,s of our people as to be dee0ed funda0ental to a civili<ed societ3 as conceived
b3 our entire histor3. Due process is that .hich co0ports .ith the deepest notions of
.hat is fair and ri,ht and Eust.
1-
It is a constitutional restraint on the le,islative as .ell as
on the e@ecutive and Eudicial po.ers of the ,overn0ent provided b3 the 7ill of Ri,hts.
Due process under the /abor !ode, li:e Constitutional due process, has t.o aspects6
substantive, i.e., the valid and authori<ed causes of e0plo30ent ter0ination under the
/abor !odeJ and procedural, i.e., the 0anner of dis0issal. Procedural due process
reHuire0ents for dis0issal are found in the I0ple0entin, Rules of P.D. 441, as
a0ended, other.ise :no.n as the /abor !ode of the Philippines in 7oo: VI, Rule I,
Sec. 1, as a0ended b3 Depart0ent Order Nos. * and #).
1B
7reaches of these due
process reHuire0ents violate the /abor !ode. Therefore statutory due process should
be differentiated fro0 failure to co0pl3 .ith constitutional due process.
Constitutional due process protects the individual fro0 the ,overn0ent and assures hi0
of his ri,hts in cri0inal, civil or ad0inistrative proceedin,sJ .hile statutory due process
found in the /abor !ode and I0ple0entin, Rules protects e0plo3ees fro0 bein,
unEustl3 ter0inated .ithout Eust cause after notice and hearin,.
In Sebuguero v. +ational ,abor -elations Commission,
1+
the dis0issal .as for a Eust
and valid cause but the e0plo3ee .as not accorded due process. The dis0issal .as
upheld b3 the !ourt but the e0plo3er .as sanctioned. The sanction should be in the
nature of inde0nification or penalt3, and depends on the facts of each case and the
,ravit3 of the o0ission co00itted b3 the e0plo3er.
In +ath v. +ational ,abor -elations Commission,
1*
it .as ruled that even if the e0plo3ee
.as not ,iven due process, the failure did not operate to eradicate the Eust causes for
dis0issal. The dis0issal bein, for Eust cause, albeit .ithout due process, did not entitle
the e0plo3ee to reinstate0ent, bac:.a,es, da0a,es and attorne3Ks fees.
Mr. 2ustice 2ose !. Vitu,, in his separate opinion in M!! Marine Services, 'nc. v.
+ational ,abor -elations Commission,
=)
.hich opinion he reiterated in Serrano, stated6
!. ?here there is Eust cause for dis0issal but due process has not been
properl3 observed b3 an e0plo3er, it .ould not be ri,ht to order either the
reinstate0ent of the dis0issed e0plo3ee or the pa30ent of bac:.a,es to
hi0. In failin,, ho.ever, to co0pl3 .ith the procedure prescribed b3 la. in
ter0inatin, the services of the e0plo3ee, the e0plo3er 0ust be dee0ed
to have opted or, in an3 case, should be 0ade liable, for the pa30ent of
separation pa3. It 0i,ht be pointed out that the notice to be ,iven and the
hearin, to be conducted ,enerall3 constitute the t.o&part due process
reHuire0ent of la. to be accorded to the e0plo3ee b3 the e0plo3er.
Nevertheless, peculiar circu0stances 0i,ht obtain in certain situations
.here to underta:e the above steps .ould be no 0ore than a useless
for0alit3 and .here, accordin,l3, it .ould not be i0prudent to appl3 the
res ipsa lo2uitur rule and a.ard, in lieu of separation pa3, no0inal
da0a,es to the e0plo3ee. @ @ @.
=#
%fter carefull3 anal3<in, the conseHuences of the diver,ent doctrines in the la. on
e0plo30ent ter0ination, .e believe that in cases involvin, dis0issals for cause but
.ithout observance of the t.in reHuire0ents of notice and hearin,, the better rule is to
abandon the Serrano doctrine and to follo. 3enphil b3 holdin, that the dis0issal .as
for Eust cause but i0posin, sanctions on the e0plo3er. Such sanctions, ho.ever, 0ust
be stiffer than that i0posed in 3enphil. 73 doin, so, this !ourt .ould be able to achieve
a fair result b3 dispensin, Eustice not Eust to e0plo3ees, but to e0plo3ers as .ell.
The unfairness of declarin, ille,al or ineffectual dis0issals for valid or authori<ed
causes but not co0pl3in, .ith statutor3 due process 0a3 have far&reachin,
conseHuences.
This .ould encoura,e frivolous suits, .here even the 0ost notorious violators of
co0pan3 polic3 are re.arded b3 invo:in, due process. This also creates absurd
situations .here there is a Eust or authori<ed cause for dis0issal but a procedural
infir0it3 invalidates the ter0ination. /et us ta:e for e@a0ple a case .here the e0plo3ee
is cau,ht stealin, or threatens the lives of his co&e0plo3ees or has beco0e a cri0inal,
.ho has fled and cannot be found, or .here serious business losses de0and that
operations be ceased in less than a 0onth. Invalidatin, the dis0issal .ould not serve
public interest. It could also discoura,e invest0ents that can ,enerate e0plo30ent in
the local econo03.
The constitutional polic3 to provide full protection to labor is not 0eant to be a s.ord to
oppress e0plo3ers. The co00it0ent of this !ourt to the cause of labor does not
prevent us fro0 sustainin, the e0plo3er .hen it is in the ri,ht, as in this case.
=1

!ertainl3, an e0plo3er should not be co0pelled to pa3 e0plo3ees for .or: not actuall3
perfor0ed and in fact abandoned.
The e0plo3er should not be co0pelled to continue e0plo3in, a person .ho is
ad0ittedl3 ,uilt3 of 0isfeasance or 0alfeasance and .hose continued e0plo30ent is
patentl3 ini0ical to the e0plo3er. The la. protectin, the ri,hts of the laborer authori<es
neither oppression nor self&destruction of the e0plo3er.
==
It 0ust be stressed that in the present case, the petitioners co00itted a ,rave offense,
i.e., abandon0ent, .hich, if the reHuire0ents of due process .ere co0plied .ith, .ould
undoubtedl3 result in a valid dis0issal.
%n e0plo3ee .ho is clearl3 ,uilt3 of conduct violative of %rticle 1+1 should not be
protected b3 the Social 2ustice !lause of the !onstitution. Social Eustice, as the ter0
su,,ests, should be used onl3 to correct an inEustice. %s the e0inent 2ustice 2ose P.
/aurel observed, social Eustice 0ust be founded on the reco,nition of the necessit3 of
interdependence a0on, diverse units of a societ3 and of the protection that should be
eHuall3 and evenl3 e@tended to all ,roups as a co0bined force in our social and
econo0ic life, consistent .ith the funda0ental and para0ount obEective of the state of
pro0otin, the health, co0fort, and Huiet of all persons, and of brin,in, about Athe
,reatest ,ood to the ,reatest nu0ber.A
=4
This is not to sa3 that the !ourt .as .ron, .hen it ruled the .a3 it did in 3enphil,
Serrano and related cases. Social Eustice is not based on ri,id for0ulas set in stone. It
has to allo. for chan,in, ti0es and circu0stances.
2ustice Isa,ani !ru< stron,l3 asserts the need to appl3 a balanced approach to labor&
0ana,e0ent relations and dispense Eustice .ith an even hand in ever3 case6
?e have repeatedl3 stressed that social Eustice I or an3 Eustice for that
0atter I is for the deservin,, .hether he be a 0illionaire in his 0ansion or
a pauper in his hovel. It is true that, in case of reasonable doubt, .e are to
tilt the balance in favor of the poor to .ho0 the !onstitution fittin,l3
e@tends its s30path3 and co0passion. 7ut never is it Eustified to ,ive
preference to the poor si0pl3 because the3 are poor, or reEect the rich
si0pl3 because the3 are rich, for Eustice 0ust al.a3s be served for the
poor and the rich ali:e, accordin, to the 0andate of the la..
=(
2ustice in ever3 case should onl3 be for the deservin, part3. It should not be presu0ed
that ever3 case of ille,al dis0issal .ould auto0aticall3 be decided in favor of labor, as
0ana,e0ent has ri,hts that should be full3 respected and enforced b3 this !ourt. %s
interdependent and indispensable partners in nation&buildin,, labor and 0ana,e0ent
need each other to foster productivit3 and econo0ic ,ro.thJ hence, the need to .ei,h
and balance the ri,hts and .elfare of both the e0plo3ee and e0plo3er.
?here the dis0issal is for a Eust cause, as in the instant case, the lac: of statutor3 due
process should not nullif3 the dis0issal, or render it ille,al, or ineffectual. Ho.ever, the
e0plo3er should inde0nif3 the e0plo3ee for the violation of his statutor3 ri,hts, as ruled
in -eta v. +ational ,abor -elations Commission.
=-
The inde0nit3 to be i0posed should
be stiffer to discoura,e the abhorrent practice of Adis0iss no., pa3 later,A .hich .e
sou,ht to deter in the Serrano rulin,. The sanction should be in the nature of
inde0nification or penalt3 and should depend on the facts of each case, ta:in, into
special consideration the ,ravit3 of the due process violation of the e0plo3er.
>nder the !ivil !ode, no0inal da0a,es is adEudicated in order that a ri,ht of the
plaintiff, .hich has been violated or invaded b3 the defendant, 0a3 be vindicated or
reco,ni<ed, and not for the purpose of inde0nif3in, the plaintiff for an3 loss suffered b3
hi0.
=B
%s enunciated b3 this !ourt in 4iernes v. +ational ,abor -elations Commissions,
=+
an
e0plo3er is liable to pa3 inde0nit3 in the for0 of no0inal da0a,es to an e0plo3ee .ho
has been dis0issed if, in effectin, such dis0issal, the e0plo3er fails to co0pl3 .ith the
reHuire0ents of due process. The !ourt, after considerin, the circu0stances therein,
fi@ed the inde0nit3 at P1,(*).(), .hich .as eHuivalent to the e0plo3eeKs one 0onth
salar3. This inde0nit3 is intended not to penali<e the e0plo3er but to vindicate or
reco,ni<e the e0plo3eeKs ri,ht to statutor3 due process .hich .as violated b3 the
e0plo3er.
=*
The violation of the petitionersK ri,ht to statutor3 due process b3 the private respondent
.arrants the pa30ent of inde0nit3 in the for0 of no0inal da0a,es. The a0ount of such
da0a,es is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, ta:in, into account the
relevant circu0stances.
4)
!onsiderin, the prevailin, circu0stances in the case at bar,
.e dee0 it proper to fi@ it at P=),))).)). ?e believe this for0 of da0a,es .ould serve
to deter e0plo3ers fro0 future violations of the statutor3 due process ri,hts of
e0plo3ees. %t the ver3 least, it provides a vindication or reco,nition of this funda0ental
ri,ht ,ranted to the latter under the /abor !ode and its I0ple0entin, Rules.
Private respondent clai0s that the !ourt of %ppeals erred in holdin, that it failed to pa3
petitionersK holida3 pa3, service incentive leave pa3 and #=th 0onth pa3.
?e are not persuaded.
?e affir0 the rulin, of the appellate court on petitionersK 0one3 clai0s. Private
respondent is liable for petitionersK holida3 pa3, service incentive leave pa3 and #=th
0onth pa3 .ithout deductions.
%s a ,eneral rule, one .ho pleads pa30ent has the burden of provin, it. ven .here
the e0plo3ee 0ust alle,e non&pa30ent, the ,eneral rule is that the burden rests on the
e0plo3er to prove pa30ent, rather than on the e0plo3ee to prove non&pa30ent. The
reason for the rule is that the pertinent personnel files, pa3rolls, records, re0ittances
and other si0ilar docu0ents I .hich .ill sho. that overti0e, differentials, service
incentive leave and other clai0s of .or:ers have been paid I are not in the possession
of the .or:er but in the custod3 and absolute control of the e0plo3er.
4#
In the case at bar, if private respondent indeed paid petitionersK holida3 pa3 and service
incentive leave pa3, it could have easil3 presented docu0entar3 proofs of such
0onetar3 benefits to disprove the clai0s of the petitioners. 7ut it did not, e@cept .ith
respect to the #=th 0onth pa3 .herein it presented cash vouchers sho.in, pa30ents of
the benefit in the 3ears disputed.
41
%lle,ations b3 private respondent that it does not
operate durin, holida3s and that it allo.s its e0plo3ees #) da3s leave .ith pa3, other
than bein, self&servin,, do not constitute proof of pa30ent. !onseHuentl3, it failed to
dischar,e the onus probandi thereb3 0a:in, it liable for such clai0s to the petitioners.
%nent the deduction of SSS loan and the value of the shoes fro0 petitioner Vir,ilio
%,abonKs #=th 0onth pa3, .e find the sa0e to be unauthori<ed. The evident intention of
Presidential Decree No. +(# is to ,rant an additional income in the for0 of the #=th
0onth pa3 to e0plo3ees not alread3 receivin, the sa0e
4=
so as Ato further protect the
level of real wages from the ravages of worldwide inflation.A
44
!learl3, as additional
inco0e, the #=th 0onth pa3 is included in the definition of .a,e under %rticle *B"f$ of
the /abor !ode, to .it6
"f$ A?a,eA paid to an3 e0plo3ee shall 0ean the re0uneration or earnin,s,
ho.ever desi,nated, capable of bein, e@pressed in ter0s of 0one3
.hether fi@ed or ascertained on a ti0e, tas:, piece , or co00ission basis,
or other 0ethod of calculatin, the sa0e, .hich is pa3able b3 an e0plo3er
to an e0plo3ee under a .ritten or un.ritten contract of e0plo30ent for
.or: done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered and
includes the fair and reasonable value, as deter0ined b3 the Secretar3 of
/abor, of board, lod,in,, or other facilities custo0aril3 furnished b3 the
e0plo3er to the e0plo3eeTA
fro0 .hich an e0plo3er is prohibited under %rticle ##=
4(
of the sa0e !ode fro0 0a:in,
an3 deductions .ithout the e0plo3eeKs :no.led,e and consent. In the instant case,
private respondent failed to sho. that the deduction of the SSS loan and the value of
the shoes fro0 petitioner Vir,ilio %,abonKs #=th 0onth pa3 .as authori<ed b3 the latter.
The lac: of authorit3 to deduct is further bolstered b3 the fact that petitioner Vir,ilio
%,abon included the sa0e as one of his 0one3 clai0s a,ainst private respondent.
The !ourt of %ppeals properl3 reinstated the 0onetar3 clai0s a.arded b3 the /abor
%rbiter orderin, the private respondent to pa3 each of the petitioners holida3 pa3 for
four re,ular holida3s fro0 #**- to #**+, in the a0ount of P-,(1).)), service incentive
leave pa3 for the sa0e period in the a0ount of P=,1((.)) and the balance of Vir,ilio
%,abonKs thirteenth 0onth pa3 for #**+ in the a0ount of P1,#().)).
-+EREFORE, in vie. of the fore,oin,, the petition is %ENIE%. The decision of the
!ourt of %ppeals dated 2anuar3 1=, 1))=, in !%&'.R. SP No. -=)#B, findin, that
petitionersK 2enn3 and Vir,ilio %,abon abandoned their .or:, and orderin, private
respondent to pa3 each of the petitioners holida3 pa3 for four re,ular holida3s fro0
#**- to #**+, in the a0ount of P-,(1).)), service incentive leave pa3 for the sa0e
period in the a0ount of P=,1((.)) and the balance of Vir,ilio %,abonKs thirteenth 0onth
pa3 for #**+ in the a0ount of P1,#().)) is AFFIRME% .ith the MO%IFICATION that
private respondent Riviera Ho0e I0prove0ents, Inc. is further OR%ERE% to pa3 each
of the petitioners the a0ount of P=),))).)) as no0inal da0a,es for non&co0pliance
.ith statutor3 due process.
No costs.
SO OR%ERE%.
#avide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, )uisumbing, Sandoval!utierre", Carpio, %ustria
Martine", Corona, CarpioMorales, Calle*o, Sr., %"cuna, 5inga, Chico+a"ario, and
!arcia, JJ., concur.
SEPARATE OPINION
TINGA, J6
I concur in the result, the final disposition of the petition bein, correct. There is no
den3in, the i0portance of the !ourtKs rulin, toda3, .hich should be considered as
definitive as to the effect of the failure to render the notice and hearin, reHuired under
the /abor !ode .hen an e0plo3ee is bein, dis0issed for Eust causes, as defined under
the sa0e la.. The !ourt e0phaticall3 reaffir0s the rule that dis0issals for Eust cause
are not invalidated due to the failure of the e0plo3er to observe the proper notice and
hearin, reHuire0ents under the /abor !ode. %t the sa0e ti0e, The #ecision li:e.ise
establishes that the !ivil !ode provisions on da0a,es serve as the proper fra0e.or:
for the appropriate relief to the e0plo3ee dis0issed for Eust cause if the notice&hearin,
reHuire0ent is not 0et. Serrano v. +,-C,
#
insofar as it is controllin, in dis0issals for
unauthori<ed causes, is no lon,er the controllin, precedent. %n3 and all previous rulin,s
and state0ents of the !ourt inconsistent .ith these deter0inations are no. dee0ed
="o@er!t=Ee.
M3 vie.s on the Huestions raised in this petition are co0prehensive, if I 0a3 so in all
0odest3. I offer this opinion to discuss the reasonin, behind 03 conclusions, pertainin,
as the3 do to Huestions of funda0ental i0portance.
Prologue
The factual bac:drop of the present Petition for -eview is not novel. Petitioners clai0
that the3 .ere ille,all3 dis0issed b3 the respondents, .ho alle,e in turn that petitioners
had actuall3 abandoned their e0plo30ent. There is little difficult3 in upholdin, the
findin,s of the NR/! and the !ourt of %ppeals that petitioners are ,uilt3 of
abandon0ent, one of the Eust causes for ter0ination under the /abor !ode. Fet, the
records also sho. that the e0plo3er .as re0iss in not ,ivin, the notice reHuired b3 the
/abor !odeJ hence, the resultant controvers3 as to the le,al effect of such failure vis6
vis the .arranted dis0issal.
Ostensibl3, the 0atter has been settled b3 our decision in Serrano
1
, .herein the !ourt
ruled that the failure to properl3 observe the notice reHuire0ent did not render the
dis0issal, .hether for Eust or authori<ed causes, null and void, for such violation .as
not a denial of the constitutional ri,ht to due process, and that the 0easure of
appropriate da0a,es in such cases ou,ht to be the a0ount of .a,es the e0plo3ee
should have received .ere it not for the ter0ination of his e0plo30ent .ithout prior
notice.
=
Still, the !ourt has, for ,ood reason, opted to ree@a0ine the so&called Serrano
doctrine throu,h the present petition
%ntecedent 7acts
Respondent Riviera Ho0e I0prove0ents, Inc "Riviera Ho0e$ is en,a,ed in the
0anufacture and installation of ,3psu0 board and cornice. In 2anuar3 of #**1, the
%,abons .ere hired in 2anuar3 of #**1 as cornice installers b3 Riviera Ho0e.
%ccordin, to their personnel file .ith Riviera Ho0e, the %,abon ,iven address .as
=RDS Tailorin,, . Rodri,ue< %ve., Moon.al: Subdivision, P&II Para9aHue !it3, Metro
Manila.
4
It is not disputed that so0eti0e around 8ebruar3 #***, the %,abons stopped renderin,
services for Riviera Ho0e. The %,abons alle,e that be,innin, on 1= 8ebruar3 #***,
the3 stopped receivin, assi,n0ents fro0 Riviera Ho0e.
(
?hen the3 de0anded an
e@planation, the 0ana,er of Riviera Ho0es, Marivic Ventura, infor0ed the0 that the3
.ould be hired a,ain, but on a Apa:3a.A "piece&.or:$ basis. ?hen the %,abons
spurned this proposal, Riviera Ho0es refused to continue their e0plo30ent under the
ori,inal ter0s and a,ree0ent.
-
Ta:in, affront, the %,abons filed a co0plaint for ille,al
dis0issal .ith the National /abor Relations !o00ission "AN/R!A$.
Riviera Ho0es adverts to a different version of events leadin, to the filin, of the
co0plaint for ille,al dis0issal. It alle,ed that in the earl3 Huarter of #***, the %,abons
stopped reportin, for .or: .ith Riviera. T.o separate letters dated #) March #***,
.ere sent to the %,abons at the address indicated in their personnel file. In these
notices, the %,abons .ere directed to report for .or: i00ediatel3.
B
Ho.ever, these
notices .ere returned unserved .ith the notation ARTS Moved.A Then, in 2une of #***,
Vir,ilio %,abon infor0ed Riviera Ho0es b3 telephone that he and 2enn3 %,abon .ere
read3 to return to .or: for Riviera Ho0es, on the condition that their .a,es be first
adEusted. On #+ 2une #***, the %,abons .ent to Riviera Ho0es, and in a 0eetin, .ith
0ana,e0ent, reHuested a .a,e increase of up to T.o Hundred i,ht3 Pesos
"P1+).))$ a da3. ?hen no affir0ative response .as offered b3 Riviera Ho0es, the
%,abons initiated the co0plaint before the N/R!.
+
In their Position Paper, the %,abons li:e.ise alle,ed that the3 .ere reHuired to .or:
even on holida3s and rest da3s, but .ere never paid the le,al holida3 pa3 or the
pre0iu0 pa3 for holida3 or rest da3. The3 also asserted that the3 .ere denied Service
Incentive /eave pa3, and that Vir,ilio %,abon .as not ,iven his thirteenth "#=th$ 0onth
pa3 for the 3ear #**+.
*
%fter due deliberation, /abor %rbiter Dais3 '. !auton&7arcelona rendered a #ecision
dated 1+ Dece0ber #***, findin, the ter0ination of the %,abons ille,al, and orderin,
Riviera Ho0es to pa3 bac:.a,es in the su0 of 8ift3 Si@ Thousand T.o Hundred Thirt3
One Pesos and Ninet3 Three !entavos "P(-,1=#.*=$ each. The /abor %rbiter li:e.ise
ordered, in lieu of reinstate0ent, the pa30ent of separation pa3 of one "#$ 0onth pa3
for ever3 3ear of service fro0 date of hirin, up to 1* Nove0ber #***, as .ell as the
pa30ent of holida3 pa3, service incentive leave pa3, and pre0iu0 pa3 for holida3 and
restda3, plus thirteenth "#=
th
$ 0onth differential to Vir,ilio %,abon.
#)
In so rulin,, the /abor %rbiter declared that Riviera Ho0es .as unable to satisfactoril3
refute the %,abonsK clai0 that the3 .ere no lon,er ,iven .or: to do after 1= 8ebruar3
#*** and that their rehirin, .as onl3 on Apa:3a.A basis. The /abor %rbiter also held that
Riviera Ho0es failed to co0pl3 .ith the notice reHuire0ent, notin, that Riviera Ho0es
.ell :ne. of the chan,e of address of the %,abons, considerin, that the identification
cards it issued stated a different address fro0 that on the personnel file.
##
The /abor
%rbiter asserted the principle that in all ter0ination cases, strict co0pliance b3 the
e0plo3er .ith the de0ands of procedural and substantive due process is a condition
sine 2ua non for the sa0e to be declared valid.
#1
On appeal, the N/R! Second Division set aside the /abor %rbiterKs #ecision and
ordered the dis0issal of the co0plaint for lac: of 0erit.
#=
The N/R! held that the
%,abons .ere not able to refute the assertion that for the pa3roll period endin, on #(
8ebruar3 #***, Vir,ilio and 2enn3 %,abon .or:ed for onl3 t.o and one&half "1P$ and
three "=$ da3s, respectivel3. It disputed the earlier findin, that Riviera Ho0es had :no.n
of the chan,e in address, notin, that the address indicated in the
identification cards .as not the %,abons, but that of the persons .ho should be notified
in case of e0er,enc3 concernin, the e0plo3ee.
#4
Thus, proper service of the notice
.as dee0ed to have been acco0plished. 8urther, the notices evinced ,ood reason to
believe that the %,abons had not been dis0issed, but had instead abandoned their Eobs
b3 refusin, to report for .or:.
In support of its conclusion that the %,abons had abandoned their .or:, the N/R! also
observed that the %,abons did not see: reinstate0ent, but onl3 separation pa3. ?hile
the choice of relief .as pre0ised b3 the %,abons on their purported strained relations
.ith Riviera Ho0es, the N/R! pointed out that such clai0 .as a0pl3 belied b3 the fact
that the %,abons had actuall3 sou,ht a conference .ith Riviera Ho0es in 2une of #***.
The N/R! li:e.ise found that the failure of the /abor %rbiter to Eustif3 the a.ard of
e@traneous 0one3 clai0s, such as holida3 and service incentive leave pa3, confir0ed
that there .as no proof to Eustif3 such clai0s.
% Petition for Certiorari .as pro0ptl3 filed .ith the !ourt of %ppeals b3 the %,abons,
i0putin, ,rave abuse of discretion on the part of the N/R! in dis0issin, their co0plaint
for ille,al dis0issal. In a #ecision
#(
dated 1= 2anuar3 1))=, the !ourt of %ppeals
affir0ed the findin, that the %,abons had abandoned their e0plo30ent. It noted that the
t.o ele0ents constitutin, abandon0ent had been established, to .it6 the failure to
report for .or: or absence .ithout valid Eustifiable reason, andJ a clear intention to sever
the e0plo3er&e0plo3ee relationship. The intent to sever the e0plo3er&e0plo3ee
relationship .as buttressed b3 the %,abonKs choice to see: not reinstate0ent, but
separation pa3. The !ourt of %ppeals li:e.ise found that the service of the notices .ere
valid, as the %,abons did not notif3 Riviera Ho0es of their chan,e of address, and thus
the failure to return to .or: despite notice a0ounted to abandon0ent of .or:.
Ho.ever, the !ourt of %ppeals reversed the N/R! as re,ards the denial of the clai0s
for holida3 pa3, service incentive leave pa3, and the balance of Vir,ilio %,abonKs
thirteenth "#=th$ 0onth pa3. It ruled that the failure to adduce proof in support thereof
.as not fatal and that the burden of provin, that such benefits had alread3 been paid
rested on Riviera Ho0es.
#-
'iven that Riviera Ho0es failed to present proof of pa30ent
to the %,abons of their holida3 pa3 and service incentive leave pa3 for the 3ears #**-,
#**B and #**+, the !ourt of %ppeals chose to believe that such benefits had not
actuall3 been received b3 the e0plo3ees. It also ruled that the apparent deductions
0ade b3 Riviera Ho0es on the thirteenth "#=th$ 0onth pa3 of Vir,ilio %,abon violated
Section #) of the Rules and Re,ulations I0ple0entin, Presidential Decree No. +(#.
#B

%ccordin,l3, Riviera Ho0es .as ordered to pa3 the %,abons holida3 for four "4$ re,ular
holida3s in #**-, #**B and #**+, as .ell as their service incentive leave pa3 for said
3ears, and the balance of Vir,ilio %,abonKs thirteenth "#=th$ 0onth pa3 for #**+ in the
a0ount of T.o Thousand One Hundred 8ift3 Pesos "P1,#().))$.
#+
In their Petition for -eview, the %,abons clai0 that the3 had been ille,all3 dis0issed,
reassertin, their version of events, thus6 "#$ that the3 had not been ,iven ne.
assi,n0ents since 1= 8ebruar3 #***J "1$ that the3 .ere told that the3 .ould onl3 be re&
hired on a Apa:3a.A basis, andJ "=$ that Riviera Ho0es had :no.in,l3 sent the notices
to their old address despite its :no.led,e of their chan,e of address as indicated in the
identification cards.
#*
8urther, the %,abons note that onl3 one notice .as sent to each of
the0, in violation of the rule that the e0plo3er 0ust furnish t.o .ritten notices before
ter0ination R the first to apprise the e0plo3ee of the cause for .hich dis0issal is
sou,ht, and the second to notif3 the e0plo3ee of the decision of dis0issal.
1)
The
%,abons li:e.ise 0aintain that the3 did not see: reinstate0ent o.in, to the strained
relations bet.een the0 and Riviera Ho0es.
The %,abons present to this !ourt onl3 one issue, i.e.6 .hether or not the3 .ere ille,all3
dis0issed fro0 their e0plo30ent.
1#
There are several di0ensions thou,h to this issue
.hich .arrant full consideration.
5he %bandonment #imension
-eview of 7actual 7inding of %bandonment
%s the #ecision points out, abandon0ent is characteri<ed b3 the failure to report for
.or: or absence .ithout valid or Eustifiable reason, and a clear intention to sever the
e0plo3er&e0plo3ee relationship. The Huestion of .hether or not an e0plo3ee has
abandoned e0plo30ent is essentiall3 a factual issue.
11
The N/R! and the !ourt of
%ppeals, both appropriate triers of fact, concluded that the %,abons had actuall3
abandoned their e0plo30ent, thus there is little need for deep inHuir3 into the
correctness of this factual findin,. There is no doubt that the %,abons stopped reportin,
for .or: so0eti0e in 8ebruar3 of #***. %nd there is no evidence to support their
assertion that such absence .as due to the deliberate failure of Riviera Ho0es to ,ive
the0 .or:. There is also the fact, as noted b3 the N/R! and the !ourt of %ppeals, that
the %,abons did not pra3 for reinstate0ent, but onl3 for separation
pa3 and 0one3 clai0s.
1=
This failure indicates their disinterest in 0aintainin, the
e0plo3er&e0plo3ee relationship and their unabated avo.ed intent to sever it. Their
e@cuse that strained relations bet.een the0 and Riviera Ho0es rendered reinstate0ent
no lon,er feasible .as hardl3 ,iven credence b3 the N/R! and the !ourt of %ppeals.
14
The contrar3 conclusion arrived at b3 the /abor %rbiter as re,ards abandon0ent is of
little bearin, to the case. %ll that the /abor %rbiter said on that point .as that Riviera
Ho0es .as not able to refute the %,abonsK clai0 that the3 .ere ter0inated on 1=
8ebruar3 #***.
1(
The /abor %rbiter did not e@plain .h3 or ho. such findin, .as reachh3
or ho. such findin, .as reachhe %,abons .as 0ore credible than that of Riviera
Ho0esK. 7ein, bereft of reasonin,, the conclusion deserves scant consideration.
Compliance with +otice -e2uirement
%t the sa0e ti0e, both the N/R! and the !ourt of %ppeals failed to consider the
apparent fact that the rules ,overnin, notice of ter0ination .ere not co0plied .ith b3
Riviera Ho0es. Section 1, 7oo: V, Rule QQIII of the O0nibus Rules I0ple0entin, the
/abor !ode "I0ple0entin, Rules$ specificall3 provides that for ter0ination of
e0plo30ent based on Eust causes as defined in %rticle 1+1, there 0ust be6 "#$ .ritten
notice served on the e0plo3ee specif3in, the ,rounds for ter0ination and ,ivin,
e0plo3ee reasonable opportunit3 to e@plain hisCher sideJ "1$ a hearin, or conference
.herein the e0plo3ee, .ith the assistance of counsel if so desired, is ,iven opportunit3
to respond to the char,e, present his evidence or rebut evidence presented a,ainst
hi0CherJ and "=$ .ritten notice of ter0ination served on the e0plo3ee indicatin, that
upon due consideration of all the circu0stances, ,rounds have been established to
Eustif3 ter0ination.
%t the sa0e ti0e, Section 1, 7oo: V, Rule QQIII of the I0ple0entin, Rules does not
reHuire strict co0pliance .ith the above procedure, but onl3 that the sa0e be
Asubstantiall3 observed.A
Riviera Ho0es 0aintains that the letters it sent on #) March #*** to the %,abons
sufficientl3 co0plied .ith the notice rule. These identicall3 .orded letters noted that the
%,abons had stopped .or:in, .ithout per0ission that the3 failed to return for .or:
despite havin, been repeatedl3 told to report to the office and resu0e their
e0plo30ent.
1-
The letters ended .ith an invitation to the %,abons to report bac: to the
office and return to .or:.
1B
The apparent purpose of these letters .as to advise the %,abons that the3 .ere
.elco0e to return bac: to .or:, and not to notif3 the0 of the ,rounds of ter0ination.
Still, considerin, that onl3 substantial co0pliance .ith the notice reHuire0ent is
reHuired, I a0 prepared to sa3 that the letters sufficientl3 confor0 to the first notice
reHuired under the I0ple0entin, Rules. The purpose of the first notice is to dul3 infor0
the e0plo3ee that a particular trans,ression is bein, considered a,ainst hi0 or her, and
that an opportunit3 is bein, offered for hi0 or her to respond to the char,es. The letters
served the purpose of infor0in, the %,abons of the pendin, 0atters becloudin, their
e0plo30ent, and e@tendin, the0 the opportunit3 to clear the air.
!ontrar3 to the %,abonsK clai0, the letter&notice .as correctl3 sent to the e0plo3eeKs
last :no.n address, in co0pliance .ith the I0ple0entin, Rules. There is no dispute
that these letters .ere not actuall3 received b3 the %,abons, as the3 had apparentl3
0oved out of the address indicated therein. Still, the letters .ere sent to .hat Riviera
Ho0es :ne. to be the %,abonsK last :no.n address, as indicated in their personnel file.
The %,abons insist that Riviera Ho0es had :no.n of the chan,e of address, offerin, as
proof their co0pan3 IDs .hich purportedl3 print out their correct ne. address. Fet, as
pointed out b3 the N/R! and the !ourt of %ppeals, the addresses indicated in the IDs
are not the %,abons, but that of the person .ho is to be notified in case on e0er,enc3
involve either or both of the %,abons.
The actual violation of the notice reHuire0ent b3 Riviera Ho0es lies in its failure to
serve on the %,abons the second notice .hich should infor0 the0 of ter0ination. %s
the #ecision notes, Riviera Ho0esK ar,u0ent that sendin, the second notice .as
useless due to the chan,e of address is inutile, since the I0ple0entin, Rules plainl3
reHuire that the notice of ter0ination should be served at the e0plo3eeKs last :no.n
address.
The i0portance of sendin, the notice of ter0ination should not be triviali<ed. The
ter0ination letter serves as indubitable proof of loss of e0plo30ent, and its receipt
co0pels the e0plo3ee to evaluate his or her ne@t options. ?ithout such notice, the
e0plo3ee 0a3 be left uncertain of his fateJ thus, its service is 0andated b3 the
I0ple0entin, Rules. Non&co0pliance .ith the notice rule, as evident in this case,
contravenes the I0ple0entin, Rules. &8t #oe; t:e E=o<!t=o" ;erEe to ="E!<=#!te t:e
A>!bo";K #=;B=;;!< ?or H8;t c!8;eL
Te !o"#alled #onstitutional $aw Dimension
2ustices Puno and Pan,aniban opine that the %,abons should be reinstated as a
conseHuence of the violation of the notice reHuire0ent. I respectfull3 disa,ree, for the
reasons e@pounded belo..
Constitutional Considerations
0f #ue Process and the +otice8earing
-e2uirement in ,abor 5ermination Cases
2ustice Puno proposes that the failure to render due notice and hearin, prior to
dis0issal for Eust cause constitutes a violation of the constitutional ri,ht to due process.
This vie., as ac:no.led,ed b3 2ustice Puno hi0self, runs contrar3 to the !ourtKs
pronounce0ent in Serrano v. +,-C
1+
that the absence of due notice and hearin, prior
to dis0issal, if for Eust cause, violates statutor3 due process.
The ponencia of 2ustice Vicente V. Mendo<a in Serrano provides this co,ent overvie.
of the histor3 of the doctrine6
Indeed, to contend that the notice reHuire0ent in the /abor !ode is an
aspect of due process is to overloo: the fact that %rt. 1+= had its ori,in in
%rt. =)1 of the Spanish !ode of !o00erce of #++1 .hich ,ave either
part3 to the e0plo3er&e0plo3ee relationship the ri,ht to ter0inate their
relationship b3 ,ivin, notice to the other one 0onth in advance. In lieu of
notice, an e0plo3ee could be laid off b3 pa3in, hi0 a mesada eHuivalent
to his salar3 for one 0onth. This provision .as repealed b3 %rt. 11B) of
the !ivil !ode, .hich too: effect on %u,ust =), #*(). 7ut on 2une #1,
#*(4, R.%. No. #)(1, other.ise :no.n as the Ter0ination Pa3 /a., .as
enacted revivin, the 0esada. On 2une 1#, #*(B, the la. .as a0ended b3
R.%. No. #B+B providin, for the ,ivin, of advance notice for ever3 3ear of
service.
1*
>nder Section # of the Ter0ination Pa3 /a., an e0plo3er could dis0iss an e0plo3ee
.ithout Eust cause b3 servin, .ritten notice on the e0plo3ee at least one 0onth in
advance or one&half 0onth for ever3 3ear of service of the e0plo3ee, .hichever .as
lon,er.
=)
8ailure to serve such .ritten notice entitled the e0plo3ee to co0pensation
eHuivalent to his salaries or .a,es correspondin, to the reHuired period of notice fro0
the date of ter0ination of his e0plo30ent.
Ho.ever, there .as no si0ilar .ritten notice reHuire0ent under the Ter0ination Pa3
/a. if the dis0issal of the e0plo3ee .as for Eust cause. The !ourt, spea:in, throu,h
2ustice 27/ Re3es, ruled in Phil. -efining Co. v. !arcia6
=#
MRepublicN %ct #)(1, as a0ended b3 Republic %ct #B+B, i0pliedl3
reco,ni<es the ri,ht of the e0plo3er to dis0iss his e0plo3ees "hired
.ithout definite period$ .hether for Eust case, as therein defined or
enu0erated, or .ithout it. I? t:ere be H8;t c!8;e, t:e eB@<o(er =; "ot
reJ8=re# to ;erEe !"( "ot=ce o? #=;c:!r>e "or to #=;b8r;e terB="!t=o"
@!( to t:e eB@<o(ee. @@@
=1
!learl3, the !ourt, prior to the enact0ent of the /abor !ode, .as ill&receptive to the
notion that ter0ination for Eust cause .ithout notice or hearin, violated the constitutional
ri,ht to due process. Nonetheless, the !ourt reco,ni<ed an a.ard of da0a,es as the
appropriate re0ed3. In !alsim v. P+&,
==
the !ourt held6
Of course, the e0plo3erKs prero,ative to dis0iss e0plo3ees hired .ithout
a definite period 0a3 be .ith or .ithout cause. 7ut if the 0anner in .hich
such ri,ht is e@ercised is abusive, the e0plo3er stands to ans.er to the
dis0issed e0plo3ee for da0a,es.
=4
The Ter0ination Pa3 /a. .as a0on, the repealed la.s .ith the enact0ent of the
/abor !ode in #*B4. Si,nificantl3, the /abor !ode, in its inception, did not reHuire notice
or hearin, before an e0plo3er could ter0inate an e0plo3ee for Eust cause. %s 2ustice
Mendo<a e@plained6
?here the ter0ination of e0plo30ent .as for a Eust cause, no notice .as
reHuired to be ,iven to the e0plo3ee. It .as onl3 on Septe0ber 4, #*+#
that notice .as reHuired to be ,iven even .here the dis0issal or
ter0ination of an e0plo3ee .as for cause. This .as 0ade in the rules
issued b3 the then Minister of /abor and 0plo30ent to i0ple0ent 7.P.
7l,. #=) .hich a0ended the /abor !ode. %nd it .as still 0uch later .hen
the notice reHuire0ent .as e0bodied in the la. .ith the a0end0ent of
%rt. 1BB"b$ b3 R.%. No. -B#( on March 1, #*+*.
=(
It cannot be denied thou,h that the thin:in, that absence of notice or hearin, prior to
ter0ination constituted a constitutional violation has ,ained a Eurisprudential foothold
.ith the !ourt. 2ustice Puno, in his #issenting 0pinion, cites several cases in support of
this theor3, be,innin, .ith &atangas ,aguna 5ayabas &us Co. v. Court of %ppeals
=-

.herein .e held that Athe failure of petitioner to ,ive the private respondent the benefit
of a hearin, before he .as dis0issed constitutes an infrin,e0ent on his constitutional
ri,ht to due process of la..
=B
Still, this theor3 has been refuted, pellucidl3 and effectivel3 to 03 0ind, b3 2ustice
Mendo<aKs disHuisition in Serrano, thus6
@@@ There are three reasons .h3, on the other hand, violation b3 the
e0plo3er of the notice reHuire0ent cannot be considered a denial of due
process resultin, in the nullit3 of the e0plo3eeKs dis0issal or la3off.
The first is that the Due Process !lause of the !onstitution is a li0itation
on ,overn0ental po.ers. It does not appl3 to the e@ercise of private
po.er, such as the ter0ination of e0plo30ent under the /abor !ode. This
is plain fro0 the te@t of %rt. III, U# of the !onstitution, vi<.6 ANo person shall
be deprived of life, libert3, or propert3 .ithout due process of la.. . . .A The
reason is si0ple6 Onl3 the State has authorit3 to ta:e the life, libert3, or
propert3 of the individual. The purpose of the Due Process !lause is to
ensure that the e@ercise of this po.er is consistent .ith .hat are
considered civili<ed 0ethods.
The second reason is that notice and hearin, are reHuired under the Due
Process !lause before the po.er of or,ani<ed societ3 are brou,ht to bear
upon the individual. This is obviousl3 not the case of ter0ination of
e0plo30ent under %rt. 1+=. Here the e0plo3ee is not faced .ith an
aspect of the adversar3 s3ste0. The purpose for reHuirin, a =)&da3
.ritten notice before an e0plo3ee is laid off is not to afford hi0 an
opportunit3 to be heard on an3 char,e a,ainst hi0, for there is none. The
purpose rather is to ,ive hi0 ti0e to prepare for the eventual loss of his
Eob and the DO/ an opportunit3 to deter0ine .hether econo0ic causes
do e@ist Eustif3in, the ter0ination of his e0plo30ent.
@@@
The third reason .h3 the notice reHuire0ent under %rt. 1+= can not be
considered a reHuire0ent of the Due Process !lause is that the e0plo3er
cannot reall3 be e@pected to be entirel3 an i0partial Eud,e of his o.n
cause. This is also the case in ter0ination of e0plo30ent for a Eust cause
under %rt. 1+1 "i.e., serious 0isconduct or .illful disobedience b3 the
e0plo3ee of the la.ful orders of the e0plo3er, ,ross and habitual ne,lect
of duties, fraud or .illful breach of trust of the e0plo3er, co00ission of
cri0e a,ainst the e0plo3er or the latterKs i00ediate fa0il3 or dul3
authori<ed representatives, or other analo,ous cases$.
=+
The !ourt in the land0ar: case of People v. Marti
=*
clarified the proper di0ensions of
the 7ill of Ri,hts.
That the 7ill of Ri,hts e0bodied in the !onstitution is not 0eant to be
invo:ed a,ainst acts of private individuals finds support in the
deliberations of the !onstitutional !o00ission. True, the liberties
,uaranteed b3 the funda0ental la. of the land 0ust al.a3s be subEect to
protection. 7ut protection a,ainst .ho0V !o00issioner 7ernas in his
sponsorship speech in the 7ill of Ri,hts ans.ers the Huer3 .hich he
hi0self posed, as follo.s6
A8irst, the ,eneral reflections. The protection of funda0ental
liberties in the essence of constitutional de0ocrac3. Protection
a,ainst .ho0V Protection a,ainst the state. The 7ill of Ri,hts
,overns the relationship bet.een the individual and the state. Its
concern is not the relation bet.een individuals, bet.een a private
individual and other individuals. ?hat the 7ill of Ri,hts does is to
declare so0e forbidden <ones in the private sphere inaccessible to
an3 po.er holder.A "Sponsorship Speech of !o00issioner 7ernasJ
Record of the !onstitutional !o00ission, Vol. #, p. -B4J 2ul3
#B,#*+-J Italics supplied$
4)
I do not doubt that reHuirin, notice and hearin, prior to ter0ination for Eust cause is an
ad0irable senti0ent borne out of basic eHuit3 and fairness. Still, it is not a constitutional
reHuire0ent that can i0pose itself on the relations of private persons and entities.
Si0pl3 put, the 7ill of Ri,hts affords protection a,ainst possible State oppression
a,ainst its citi<ens, but not a,ainst an unEust or repressive conduct b3 a private part3
to.ards another.
2ustice Puno characteri<es the notion that constitutional due process li0its ,overn0ent
action alone as Mpass9 ,A and adverts to nouvelle vague theories .hich assert that
private conduct 0a3 be restrained b3 constitutional due process. His dissent alludes to
the %0erican e@perience 0a:in, references to the post&!ivil ?arCpre&?orld ?ar II era
.hen the >S Supre0e !ourt see0ed overl3 solicitous to the ri,hts of bi, business over
those of the .or:ers.
Theories, no 0atter ho. entrancin,, re0ain theoretical unless adopted b3 le,islation, or
0ore controversiall3, b3 Eudicial opinion. There .ere a fe. decisions of the >S Supre0e
!ourt that, ostensibl3, i0posed on private persons the values of the constitutional
,uarantees. Ho.ever, in decidin, the cases, the %0erican Hi,h !ourt found it
necessar3 to lin: the actors to adeHuate ele0ents of the AStateA since the 8ourteenth
%0end0ent plainl3 be,ins .ith the .ords ANo State shallTA
4#
More cruciall3 to the %0erican e@perience, it had beco0e necessar3 to pass le,islation
in order to co0pel private persons to observe constitutional values. ?hile the eHual
protection clause .as dee0ed sufficient b3 the ?arren !ourt to bar racial se,re,ation
in public facilities, it necessitated enact0ent of the !ivil Ri,hts %cts of #*-4 to prohibit
se,re,ation as enforced b3 private persons .ithin their propert3. In this Eurisdiction, I
have trust in the statutor3 re,i0e that ,overns the correction of private .ron,s. There
are thousands of statutes, so0e penal or re,ulator3 in nature, that are the source of
actionable clai0s a,ainst private persons. There is even no stoppin, the State, throu,h
the le,islative cauldron, fro0 co0pellin, private individuals, under pain of le,al
sanction, into observin, the nor0s ordained in the 7ill of Ri,hts.
2ustice Pan,anibanKs Separate 0pinion asserts that corporate behe0oths and even
individuals 0a3 no. be sources of abuses and threats to hu0an ri,hts and liberties.
41

The concern is not unfounded, but appropriate re0edies e@ist .ithin our statutes, and
so resort to the constitutional tru0p card is not necessar3. ven if .e .ere to en,a,e
the pre0ise, the proper Euristic e@ercise should be to e@a0ine .hether an e0plo3er has
ta:en the attributes of the State so that it could be co0pelled b3 the !onstitution to
observe the proscriptions of the 7ill of Ri,hts. 7ut the strained analo,3 si0pl3 does not
sHuare since the attributes of an e0plo3er are star:l3 incon,ruous .ith those of the
State. 0plo3ers plainl3 do not possess the a.eso0e po.ers and the tre0endous
resources .hich the State has at its co00and.
The differences bet.een the State and e0plo3ers are not 0erel3 literal, but e@tend to
their ver3 essences. >nli:e the State, the raison d:etre of e0plo3ers in business is to
accu0ulate profits. Perhaps the State and the e0plo3er are si0ilarl3 capacitated to
inflict inEur3 or disco0fort on persons under their control, but the sa0e po.er is also
possessed b3 a school principal, hospital ad0inistrator, or a reli,ious leader, a0on,
0an3 others. Indeed, the scope and reach of authorit3 of an e0plo3er pales in
co0parison .ith that of the State. There is no basis to conclude that an e0plo3er, or
even the e0plo3er class, 0a3 be dee0ed a de facto state and on that pre0ise,
co0pelled to observe the 7ill of Ri,hts. There is si0pl3 no ne@us in their functions,
distaff as the3 are, that renders it necessar3 to accord the sa0e Eurisprudential
treat0ent.
It 0a3 be so, as alluded in the dissent of 2ustice Puno, that a conservative court s3ste0
overl3 solicitous to the concerns of business 0a3 consciousl3 ,ut a.a3 at ri,hts or
privile,es o.in, to the labor sector. This certainl3 happened before in the >nited States
in the earl3 part of the t.entieth centur3, .hen the pro,ressive labor le,islation such as
that enacted durin, President RooseveltKs Ne. Deal re,i0e R 0ost of the0 addressin,
proble0s of labor R .ere struc: do.n b3 an arch&conservative !ourt.
4=
The preferred
rationale then .as to enshrine .ithin the constitutional order business prero,atives,
renderin, the0 superior to the e@press le,islative intent. !uriousl3, follo.in, its Eudicial
philosoph3 at the ti0e the >. S. Supre0e !ourt 0ade due process ,uarantee to.ards
e0plo3ers prevail over the police po.er to defeat the cause of labor.
44
Of course, this !ourt should not be insensate to the 0eans and 0ethods b3 .hich the
entrenched po.erful class 0a3 0aneuver the socio&political s3ste0 to ensure self&
preservation. Ho.ever, the re0ed3 to ri,ht.ard Eudicial bias is not left.ard Eudicial bias.
The 0ore proper Eudicial attitude is to ,ive due respect to le,islative prero,atives,
re,ardless of the ideolo,ical sauce the3 are dipped in.
?hile the 7ill of Ri,hts 0aintains a position of pri0ac3 in the constitutional hierarch3,
4(
it
has scope and li0itations that 0ust be respected and asserted b3 the !ourt, even
thou,h the3 0a3 at ti0es serve so0e.hat bitter ends. The dissentin, opinions are
palpabl3 distressed at the effect of the #ecision, .hich .ill undoubtedl3 provo:e those
refle@ivel3 s30pathetic to the labor class. 7ut hapha<ard le,al theor3 cannot be used to
Eustif3 the obverse result. The adoption of the dissentin, vie.s .ould ,ive rise to all
sorts of absurd constitutional clai0s. %n e@co00unicated !atholic 0i,ht de0and
hisCher reinstate0ent into the ,ood ,races of the !hurch and into co00union on the
,round that e@co00unication .as violative of the constitutional ri,ht to due process. %
celebrit3 contracted to endorse Pepsi !ola 0i,ht sue in court to void a stipulation that
prevents hi0Cher fro0 sin,in, the praises of !oca !ola once in a .hile, on the ,round
that such stipulation violates the constitutional ri,ht to free speech. %n e0plo3ee 0i,ht
sue to prevent the e0plo3er fro0 readin, out,oin, e&0ail sent throu,h the co0pan3
server usin, the co0pan3 e&0ail address, on the ,round that the constitutional ri,ht to
privac3 of co00unication .ould be breached.
The above concerns do not in an3.a3 serve to triviali<e the interests of labor. 7ut .e
0ust avoid overarchin, declarations in order to Eustif3 an end result beneficial to labor. I
dread the doctrinal acceptance of the notion that the 7ill of Ri,hts, on its o.n, affords
protection and sanctuar3 not Eust fro0 the acts of State but also fro0 the conduct of
private persons. Natural and Euridical persons .ould hesitate to interact for fear that a
0isstep could lead to their bein, char,ed in court as a constitutional violator. Private
institutions that thrive on their e@clusivit3, such as churches or cliHuish ,roups, could be
forced to rene,e on their traditional tenets, includin, vo.s of secrec3 and the li:e, if
dee0ed b3 the !ourt as inconsistent .ith the 7ill of Ri,hts. Indeed, that funda0ental
ri,ht of all private persons to be let alone .ould be forever di0inished because of a
Huestionable notion that contravenes .ith centuries of political thou,ht.
It is not difficult to be enraptured b3 novel le,al ideas. Their characteri<ation is
susceptible to the sa0e 0ar:etin, traps that hoo: consu0ers to ne. products. ?ith the
help of uniHue .rappin,, a catch3 label, and testi0onials fro0 professed e@perts fro0
e@otic lands, a 0alodorous idea 0a3 ,ain .ide acceptance, even a0on, those self&
possessed .ith their o.n hei,htened senses of perception. Fet before .e Eoin the 0ad
rush in order to proclai0 a theor3 as Abrilliant,A a ri,orous test 0ust first be e0plo3ed to
deter0ine .hether it co0ple0ents or contradicts our o.n s3ste0 of la.s and Euristic
thou,ht. ?ithout such anal3sis, .e run the ris: of abne,atin, the doctrines .e have
fostered for decades and the protections the3 0a3 have i0planted into our .a3 of life.
Should the !ourt adopt the vie. that the 7ill of Ri,hts 0a3 be invo:ed to invalidate
actions b3 private entities a,ainst private individuals, the !ourt .ould open the
flood,ates to, and the doc:et .ould be s.a0ped .ith, liti,ations of the scurrilous sort.
2ust as patriotis0 is the last refu,e of scoundrels, the broad constitutional clai0 is the
final resort of the desperate liti,ant.
Constitutional Protection of ,abor
The provisions of the #*+B !onstitution affir0 the pri0ac3 of labor and advocate a
0ulti&faceted state polic3 that affords, a0on, others, full protection to labor. Section #+,
%rticle II thereof provides6
The State affir0s labor as a pri0ar3 social econo0ic force. It shall protect
the ri,hts of .or:ers and pro0ote their .elfare.
8urther, Section =, %rticle QIII states6
The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,
or,ani<ed and unor,ani<ed, and pro0ote full e0plo30ent and eHual
e0plo30ent opportunities for all.
It shall ,uarantee the ri,hts of all .or:ers to self&or,ani<ation, collective
bar,ainin, and ne,otiations, and peaceful concerted activities, includin,
the ri,ht to stri:e in accordance .ith la.. The3 shall be entitled to securit3
to tenure, hu0ane conditions of .or:, and a livin, .a,e. The3 shall also
participate in polic3 and decision&0a:in, processes affectin, their ri,hts
and benefits as 0a3 be provided b3 la..
The State shall pro0ote the principle of shared responsibilit3 bet.een
.or:ers and e0plo3ers and the preferential use of voluntar3 0odes in
settlin, disputes, includin, conciliation, and shall enforce their 0utual
co0pliance there.ith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall re,ulate the relations bet.een .or:ers and e0plo3ers,
reco,ni<in, the ri,ht of labor to its Eust share in the fruits of production and
the ri,ht of enterprises to reasonable returns on invest0ents, and to
e@pansion and ,ro.th.
The constitutional enshrine0ent of the ,uarantee of full protection of labor is not novel
to the #*+B !onstitution. Section -, %rticle QIV of the #*=( !onstitution reads6
The State shall afford protection to labor, especiall3 to .or:in, .o0en,
and 0inors, and shall re,ulate the relations bet.een the lando.ner and
tenant, and bet.een labor and capital in industr3 and in a,riculture. The
State 0a3 provide for co0pulsor3 arbitration.
Si0ilarl3, a0on, the principles and state policies declared in the #*B= !onstitution, is
that provided in Section *, %rticle II thereof6
The State shall afford full protection to labor, pro0ote full e0plo30ent and
eHualit3 in e0plo30ent, ensure eHual .or: opportunities re,ardless of
se@, race or creed, and re,ulate the relations bet.een .or:ers and
e0plo3ers. The State shall assure the ri,hts of .or:ers to self&
or,ani<ation, collective bar,ainin,, securit3 of tenure, and Eust and
hu0ane conditions of .or:. The State 0a3 provide for co0pulsor3
arbitration.
On the other hand, prior to the #*B= !onstitution, the ri,ht to securit3 of tenure could
onl3 be found in le,islative enact0ents and their respective i0ple0entin, rules and
re,ulations. It .as onl3 in the #*B= !onstitution that securit3 of tenure .as elevated as
a constitutional ri,ht. The develop0ent of the concept of securit3 of tenure as a
constitutionall3 reco,ni<ed ri,ht .as discussed b3 this !ourt in &P' Credit Corporation
v. +,-C,
4-
to .it6
The enthrone0ent of the .or:erKs ri,ht to securit3 or tenure in our
funda0ental la. .as not achieved overni,ht. 8or all its liberalit3 to.ards
labor, our #*=( !onstitution did not elevate the ri,ht as a constitutional
ri,ht. 8or a lon, ti0e, the .or:erKs securit3 of tenure had onl3 the
protective 0antle of statutes and their interpretative rules and re,ulations.
It .as as uncertain protection that so0eti0es 3ielded to the political
per0utations of the ti0es. It too: labor nearl3 four decades of s.eat and
tears to persuade our people thru their leaders, to e@alt the .or:erKs ri,ht
to securit3 of tenure as a sacrosanct constitutional ri,ht. It .as %rticle II,
section 1 M*N of our #*B= !onstitution that declared as a polic3 that the
State shall assure the ri,ht of .or:erKs to securit3 tenure. The #*+B
!onstitution is even 0ore solicitous of the .elfare of labor. Section = of its
%rticle QIII 0andates that the State shall afford full protection to labor and
declares that all .or:ers shall be entitled to securit3 of tenure. %0on, the
enunciated State policies are the
pro0otion of social Eustice and a Eust and d3na0ic social order. In contrast,
the prero,ative of 0ana,e0ent to dis0iss a .or:er, as an aspect of
propert3 ri,ht, has never been endo.ed .ith a constitutional status.
The uneHuivocal constitutional declaration that all .or:ers shall be entitled
to securit3 of tenure spurred our la.0a:ers to stren,then the protective
.alls around this hard earned ri,ht. The ri,ht .as protected fro0 undue
infrin,e0ent both b3 our substantive and procedural la.s. Thus, the
causes for dis0issin, e0plo3ees .ere 0ore defined and restrictedJ on the
other hand, the procedure of ter0ination .as also 0ore clearl3 delineated.
These substantive and procedural la.s 0ust be strictl3 co0plied .ith
before a .or:er can be dis0issed fro0 his e0plo30ent.
4B
It is Huite apparent that the constitutional protection of labor .as entrenched 0ore than
ei,ht decades a,o, 3et such did not prevent this !ourt in the past fro0 affir0in,
dis0issals for Eust cause .ithout valid notice. Nor .as there an3 pretense 0ade that this
constitutional 0a@i0 afforded a laborer a positive ri,ht a,ainst dis0issal for Eust cause
on the ,round of lac: of valid prior notice. %s de0onstrated earlier, it .as onl3 after the
enact0ent of the /abor !ode that the doctrine relied upon b3 the dissentin, opinions
beca0e en vogue. This point hi,hli,hts 03 position that the violation of the notice
reHuire0ent has statutor3 0oorin,s, not constitutional.
It should be also noted that the #*+B !onstitution also reco,ni<es the principle of
shared responsibilit3 bet.een .or:ers and e0plo3ers, and the ri,ht of enterprise to
reasonable returns, e@pansion, and ,ro.th. ?hatever perceived i0balance there 0i,ht
have been under previous incarnations of the provision have been obviated b3 Section
=, %rticle QIII.
In the case of Manila Prince 8otel v. !S'S,
4+
.e affir0ed the presu0ption that all
constitutional provisions are self&e@ecutin,. ?e reasoned that to declare other.ise
.ould result in the pernicious situation .herein b3 0ere inaction and disre,ard b3 the
le,islature, constitutional 0andates .ould be rendered ineffectual. Thus, .e held6
%s a,ainst constitutions of the past, 0odern constitutions have been
,enerall3 ed upon a different principle and have often beco0e in effect
e@tensive codes of la.s intended to operate directl3 upon the people in a
0anner si0ilar to that of statutor3 enact0ents, and the function of
constitutional conventions has evolved into one 0ore li:e that of a
le,islative bod3. Hence, unless it is e@pressl3 provided that a le,islative
act is necessar3 to enforce a constitutional 0andate, the presu0ption no.
is that all provisions of the constitution are self&e@ecutin,. If the
constitutional provisions are treated as reHuirin, le,islation instead of self&
e@ecutin,, the le,islature .ould have the po.er to i,nore and practicall3
nullif3 the 0andate of the funda0ental la.. This can be catacl3s0ic. That
is .h3 the prevailin, vie. is, as it has al.a3s been, that R
. . . in case of doubt, the !onstitution should be considered self&
e@ecutin, rather than non&self&e@ecutin,. . . . >nless the contrar3 is
clearl3 intended, the provisions of the !onstitution should be
considered self&e@ecutin,, as a contrar3 rule .ould ,ive the
le,islature discretion to deter0ine .hen, or .hether, the3 shall be
effective. These provisions .ould be subordinated to the .ill of the
la.0a:in, bod3, .hich could 0a:e the0 entirel3 0eanin,less b3
si0pl3 refusin, to pass the needed i0ple0entin, statute.
4*
In further discussin, self&e@ecutin, provisions, this !ourt stated that6
In self&e@ecutin, constitutional provisions, the le,islature 0a3 still enact
le,islation to facilitate the e@ercise of po.ers directl3 ,ranted b3 the
constitution, further the operation of such a provision, prescribe a practice
to be used for its enforce0ent, provide a convenient re0ed3 for the
protection of the ri,hts secured or the deter0ination thereof, or place
reasonable safe,uards around the e@ercise of the ri,ht. The 0ere fact that
le,islation 0a3 supple0ent and add to or prescribe a penalt3 for the
violation of a self&e@ecutin, constitutional provision does not render such a
provision ineffective in the absence of such le,islation. The o0ission fro0
a constitution of an3 e@press provision for a re0ed3 for enforcin, a ri,ht or
liabilit3 is not necessaril3 an indication that it .as not intended to be self&
e@ecutin,. The rule is that a self&e@ecutin, provision of the constitution
does not necessaril3 e@haust le,islative po.er on the subEect, but an3
le,islation 0ust be in har0on3 .ith the constitution, further the e@ercise of
constitutional ri,ht and 0a:e it 0ore available. SubseHuent le,islation
ho.ever does not necessaril3 0ean that the subEect constitutional
provision is not, b3 itself, full3 enforceable.
()
Thus, the constitutional 0andates of protection to labor and securit3 of tenure 0a3 be
dee0ed as self&e@ecutin, in the sense that these are auto0aticall3 ac:no.led,ed and
observed .ithout need for an3 enablin, le,islation. Ho.ever, to declare that the
constitutional provisions are enou,h to ,uarantee the full e@ercise of the ri,hts
e0bodied therein, and the reali<ation of ideals therein e@pressed, .ould be i0practical,
if not unrealistic. The espousal of such vie. presents the dan,erous tendenc3 of bein,
overbroad and e@a,,erated. The ,uarantees of Afull protection to laborA and Asecurit3 of
tenureA, .hen e@a0ined in isolation, are faciall3 unHualified, and the broadest
interpretation possible su,,ests a blan:et shield in favor of labor a,ainst an3 for0 of
re0oval re,ardless of circu0stance. This interpretation i0plies an uni0peachable ri,ht
to continued e0plo30ent&a utopian notion, doubtless&but still hardl3 .ithin the
conte0plation of the fra0ers. SubseHuent le,islation is still needed to define the
para0eters of these ,uaranteed ri,hts to ensure the protection and pro0otion, not onl3
the ri,hts of the labor sector, but of the e0plo3ersK as .ell. ?ithout specific and
pertinent le,islation, Eudicial bodies .ill be at a loss, for0ulatin, their o.n conclusion to
appro@i0ate at least the ai0s of the !onstitution.
>lti0atel3, therefore, Section = of %rticle QIII cannot, on its o.n, be a source of a
positive enforceable ri,ht to stave off the dis0issal of an e0plo3ee for Eust cause o.in,
to the failure to serve proper notice or hearin,. %s 0anifested b3 several fra0ers of the
#*+B !onstitution, the provisions on social Eustice reHuire le,islative enact0ents for
their enforceabilit3. This is reflected in the record of debates on the social Eustice
provisions of the !onstitution6
MS. M8/I!IT%S S.N %;>INO6 ?e appreciate the concern of the
!o00issioner. 7ut this !o00ittee Mon Social 2usticeN has actuall3
beco0e t:e ?or8B !<re!#( o? ! <ot o? ;@ec=?=c >r=eE!"ce; !"# ;@ec=?=c
#eB!"#;, ;8c: t:!t 8"#er;t!"#!b<(, Ae B!( :!Ee bee", !t o"e t=Be
or !"ot:er, #!">ero8;<( tre!#="> ="to t:e ?8"ct=o"; o? <e>=;<!t=o". Our
onl3 plea to the !o00ission is to focus our perspective on the 0atter of
social Eustice and its ri,htful place in the !onstitution. -:!t Ae e"E=;=o"
:ere =; ! B!"#!te ;@ec=?=c e"o8>: t:!t Ao8<# >=Ee =B@et8; ?or
;t!t8tor( =B@<eBe"t!t=o". -e Ao8<# c!8t=o" o8r;e<Ee; =" terB; o?
t:e H8#=c=o8; eCerc=;e o? ;e<?*ce";or;:=@ !>!=";t tre!#="> ="to t:e
?8"ct=o"; o? <e>=;<!t=o". "e0phasis supplied$
(#
@@@
M8/ORNL D.N R'%/%DO6 I notice that the #*=( !onstitution had onl3
one section on social EusticeJ the sa0e is true .ith the #*B= !onstitution.
7ut the3 see0 to have stood us in ,ood steadJ and I !B ! <=tt<e ;8r@r=;e#
A:(, #e;@=te t:!t !tteB@t !t ;e<?*ce";or;:=@, t:ere !re cert!="
@roE=;=o"; :ere A:=c: !re @ro@er<( ?or <e>=;<!t=o".
(1
@@@
7ISHOP MTODORO S.N 7%!%NI6 MIN thin: the distinction that .as ,iven
durin, the presentation of the provisions on the 7ill of Ri,hts b3
!o00issioner 7ernas is ver3 apropos here. +e ;@oDe o? ;e<?*eCec8t=">
r=>:t; A:=c: be<o"> @ro@er<( to t:e &=<< o? R=>:t;, !"# t:e" :e ;@oDe
o? ! "eA bo#( o? r=>:t; A:=c: !re Bore o? c<!=B; !"# t:!t t:e;e :!Ee
coBe !bo8t <!r>e<( t:ro8>: t:e AorD; o? ;oc=!< @:=<o;o@:er; !"#
t:e" t:e te!c:="> o? t:e Po@e;. T:e( ?oc8; o" t:e coBBo" >oo# !"#
:e"ce, =t =; "ot !; e!;( to @="@o="t @rec=;e<( t:e;e r=>:t; "or t:e
;=t8; o? t:e r=>:t;. %nd 3et, the3 e@ist in relation to the co00on ,ood.
(=
@@@
MS. MMIND% />L M.N ;>S%D%6 I t:="D t:e "=tt(*>r=tt( o? t:=; D="# o?
co<<!bor!t=o" A=<< be <e?t to <e>=;<!t=o" but the i0portant thin, no. is the
conservation, utili<ation or 0a@i0i<ation of the ver3 li0ited resources. @@@
MRI!%RDO 2.N ROM>/O6 The other proble0 is that, b3 and lar,e,
,overn0ent services are inefficient. So, this is a proble0 all b3 itself. On
Section #*, .here the report sa3s that peopleKs or,ani<ations as a
principal 0eans of e0po.erin, the people to pursue and protect throu,h
peaceful 0eansT, I #o "ot ;8@@o;e t:!t t:e CoBB=ttee Ao8<# <=De to
e=t:er @reeB@t or eCc<8#e t:e <e>=;<!t8re, bec!8;e t:e co"ce@t o? !
re@re;e"t!t=Ee !"# #eBocr!t=c ;(;teB re!<<( =; t:!t t:e <e>=;<!t8re =;
"orB!<<( t:e @r="c=@!< Be!";.
MDM>NDO '.N '%R!I%6 T:!t =; correct. I" ?!ct, @eo@<e c!""ot eEe"
#re!B o? ="?<8e"c="> t:e coB@o;=t=o" or t:e BeBber;:=@ o? t:e
<e>=;<!t8re, =? t:e( #o "ot >et or>!"=Fe#. It is, in fact, a reco,nition of
the principle that unless a citi<enr3 is or,ani<ed and 0obili<ed to pursue
its ends peacefull3, then it cannot reall3 participate effectivel3.
(4
There is no pretense on the part of the fra0ers that the provisions on Social 2ustice,
particularl3 Section = of %rticle QIII, are self&e@ecutor3. Still, considerin, the rule that
provisions should be dee0ed self&e@ecutin, if enforceable .ithout further le,islative
action, an e@a0ination of Section = of %rticle QIII is .arranted to deter0ine .hether it is
co0plete in itself as a definitive la., or if it needs future le,islation for co0pletion and
enforce0ent.
((
Particularl3, .e should inHuire .hether or not the provision voids the
dis0issal of a laborer for Eust cause if no valid notice or hearin, is attendant.
!onstitutional !o00issioner 8r. 2oaHuin '. 7ernas 0a:es a si,nificant co00ent on
Section =, %rticle QIII of the #*+B !onstitution6
The MclusterN of ri,hts ,uaranteed in the second para,raph are the ri,ht Ato
securit3 of tenure, hu0ane conditions of .or:, and a livin, .a,e.A %,ain,
althou,h these have been set apart b3 a period ".$ fro0 the ne@t sentence
and are therefore not 0odified b3 the final phrase Aas 0a3 be provided b3
la.,A =t =; "ot t:e ="te"t=o" to @<!ce t:e;e be(o"# t:e re!c: o? E!<=#
<!A;. @@@ "e0phasis supplied$
(-
%t present, the /abor !ode is the pri0ar3 0echanis0 to carr3 out the !onstitutionKs
directives. This is clear fro0 %rticle =
(B
under !hapter # thereof .hich essentiall3
restates the polic3 on the protection of labor as .orded in the #*B= !onstitution, .hich
.as in force at the ti0e of enact0ent of the /abor !ode. It cr3stalli<es the funda0ental
la.Ks policies on labor, defines the para0eters of the ri,hts ,ranted to labor such as the
ri,ht to securit3 of tenure, and prescribes the standards for the enforce0ent of such
ri,hts in concrete ter0s. ?hile not infallible, the 0easures provided therein tend to
ensure the achieve0ent of the constitutional ai0s.
The necessit3 for la.s concreti<in, the constitutional principles on the protection of
labor is evident in the reliance placed upon such la.s b3 the !ourt in resolvin, the issue
of the validit3 of a .or:erKs dis0issal. In cases .here that .as the issue confrontin, the
!ourt, it consistentl3 reco,ni<ed the constitutional ri,ht to securit3 of tenure and
e0plo3ed the standards laid do.n b3 prevailin, la.s in deter0inin, .hether such ri,ht
.as violated.
(+
The !ourtKs reference to la.s other than the !onstitution in resolvin, the
issue of dis0issal is an i0plicit ac:no.led,0ent that the ri,ht to securit3 of tenure,
.hile reco,ni<ed in the !onstitution, cannot be i0ple0ented unifor0l3 absent a la.
prescribin, concrete standards for its enforce0ent.
%s discussed earlier, the validit3 of an e0plo3eeKs dis0issal in previous cases .as
e@a0ined b3 the !ourt in accordance .ith the standards laid do.n b3 !on,ress in the
Ter0ination Pa3 /a., and subseHuentl3, the /abor !ode and the a0end0ents thereto.
%t present, the validit3 of an e0plo3eeKs dis0issal is .ei,hed a,ainst the standards laid
do.n in %rticle 1B*, as .ell as %rticle 1+1 in relation to %rticle 1BB"b$ of the /abor !ode,
for a dis0issal for Eust cause, and %rticle 1+= for a dis0issal for an authori<ed cause.
5he ;ffect of Statutory 4iolation
0f +otice and 8earing
There is no doubt that the dis0issal of an e0plo3ee even for Eust cause, .ithout prior
notice or hearin,, violates the /abor !ode. Ho.ever, does such violation necessaril3
void the dis0issalV
7efore I proceed .ith 03 discussion on dis0issals for Eust causes, a brief co00ent
re,ardin, dis0issals for authori<ed cause under %rticle 1+= of the /abor !ode. ?hile
the Eusticiable Huestion in Serrano pertained to a dis0issal for unauthori<ed cause, the
rulin, therein .as crafted as definitive to dis0issals for Eust cause. Happil3, the #ecision
toda3 does not adopt the sa0e un.ise tac:. It should be reco,ni<ed that dis0issals for
Eust cause and dis0issals for authori<ed cause are ,overned b3 different provisions,
entail diver,ent reHuisites, and ani0ated b3 distinct rationales. The lan,ua,e of %rticle
1+= e@pressl3 effects the ter0ination for authori<ed cause to the service of .ritten
notice on the .or:ers and the Ministr3 of /abor at least one "#$ 0onth before the
intended date of ter0ination. This constitutes an e0inent difference than dis0issals for
Eust cause, .herein the causal relation bet.een the notice and the dis0issal is not
e@pressl3 stipulated. The circu0stances distin,uishin, Eust and authori<ed causes are
too 0ar:edl3 different to be subEected to the sa0e rules and reasonin, in interpretation.
Since the present petition is li0ited to a Huestion arisin, fro0 a dis0issal for Eust cause,
there is no reason for 0a:in, an3 pronounce0ent re,ardin, authori<ed causes. Such
declaration .ould be 0erel3 obiter, since the3 are neither the la. of the case nor
dispositive of the present petition. ?hen the Huestion beco0es Eusticiable before this
!ourt, .e .ill be confronted .ith an appropriate factual 0ilieu on .hich .e can render a
0ore Eudicious disposition of this ad0ittedl3 i0portant Huestion.
&. #ismissal for Just Cause
There is no e@press provision in the /abor !ode that voids a dis0issal for Eust cause on
the ,round that there .as no notice or hearin,. >nder Section 1B*, the e0plo3er is
precluded fro0 dis0issin, an e0plo3ee e@cept for a Eust cause as provided in Section
1+1, or an authori<ed cause under Sections 1+= and 1+4. 7ased on readin, Section
1B* alone, the e@istence of Eust cause b3 itself is sufficient to validate the ter0ination.
2ust cause is defined b3 %rticle 1+1, .hich unli:e %rticle 1+=, does not condition the
ter0ination on the service of .ritten notices. Still, the dissentin, opinions propound that
even if there is Eust cause, a ter0ination 0a3 be invalidated due to the absence of
notice or hearin,. This vie. is anchored 0ainl3 on constitutional 0oorin,s, the basis of
.hich I had ar,ued a,ainst earlier. 8or deter0ination no. is .hether there is statutor3
basis under the /abor !ode to void a dis0issal for Eust cause due to the absence of
notice or hearin,.
%s pointed out b3 2ustice Mendo<a in Serrano, it .as onl3 in #*+* that the /abor !ode
.as a0ended to enshrine into statute the t.in reHuire0ents of notice and hearin,.
(*

Such reHuire0ents are found in %rticle 1BB of the /abor !ode, under the headin,
AMiscellaneous Provisions.A Prior to the a0end0ent, the notice&hearin, reHuire0ent
.as found under the i0ple0entin, rules issued b3 the then Minister of /abor in #*+#.
The present&da3 i0ple0entin, rules li:e.ise 0andate that the standards of due
process, includin, the reHuire0ent of .ritten notice and hearin,, Abe substantiall3
observed.A
-)
Indubitabl3, the failure to substantiall3 co0pl3 .ith the standards of due process,
includin, the notice and hearin, reHuire0ent, 0a3 ,ive rise to an actionable clai0
a,ainst the e0plo3er. >nder %rticle 1++, penalties 0a3 arise fro0 violations of an3
provision of the /abor !ode. The Secretar3 of /abor li:e.ise enEo3s broad po.ers to
inHuire into e@istin, relations bet.een e0plo3ers and e0plo3ees. S3ste0atic violations
b3 0ana,e0ent of the statutor3 ri,ht to due process .ould fall under the broad ,rant of
po.er to the Secretar3 of /abor to investi,ate under %rticle 1B=.
Ho.ever, the re0ed3 of reinstate0ent despite ter0ination for Eust cause is si0pl3 not
authori<ed b3 the /abor !ode. Neither the /abor !ode nor its i0ple0entin, rules states
that a ter0ination for Eust cause is voided because the reHuire0ent of notice and
hearin, .as not observed. This is not si0pl3 an inadvertent se0antic failure, but a
conscious effort to protect the prero,atives of the e0plo3er to dis0iss an e0plo3ee for
Eust cause. Notabl3, despite the several pronounce0ents b3 this !ourt in the past
eHuatin, the notice&hearin, reHuire0ent in labor cases to a constitutional 0a@i0,
neither the le,islature nor the e@ecutive has adopted the sa0e tac:, even ,uttin, the
protection to provide that substantial co0pliance .ith due process suffices.
The /abor !ode si,nificantl3 eroded 0ana,e0ent prero,atives in the hirin, and firin, of
e0plo3ees. ?hereas e0plo3ees could be dis0issed even .ithout Eust cause under the
Ter0ination Pa3 /a.
-#
, the /abor !ode affords .or:ers broad securit3 of tenure. Still,
the la. reco,ni<es the ri,ht of the e0plo3er to ter0inate for Eust cause. The Eust causes
enu0erated under the /abor !ode W serious 0isconduct or .illful disobedience, ,ross
and habitual ne,lect, fraud or .illful breach of trust, co00ission of a cri0e b3 the
e0plo3ee a,ainst the e0plo3er, and other analo,ous causes W are characteri<ed b3
the har0ful behavior of an e0plo3ee a,ainst the business or the person of the
e0plo3er.
These Eust causes for ter0ination are not ne,ated b3 the absence of notice or hearin,.
%n e0plo3ee .ho tries to :ill the e0plo3er cannot be 0a,icall3 absolved of trespasses
Eust because the e0plo3er for,ot to serve due notice. Or a less e@tre0e e@a0ple, the
,ross and habitual ne,lect of an e0plo3ee .ill not be i0proved upon Eust because the
e0plo3er failed to conduct a hearin, prior to ter0ination.
In fact, the practical purpose of reHuirin, notice and hearin, is to afford the e0plo3ee
the opportunit3 to dispute the contention that there .as Eust cause in the dis0issal. Fet it
0ust be understood I =? ! #=;B=;;e# eB@<o(ee =; #e@r=Ee# o? t:e r=>:t to "ot=ce
!"# :e!r=">, !"# t:8; #e"=e# t:e o@@ort8"=t( to @re;e"t co8"terE!=<="> eE=#e"ce
t:!t #=;@8te; t:e ?="#="> o? H8;t c!8;e, re=";t!teBe"t A=<< be E!<=# "ot bec!8;e t:e
"ot=ce !"# :e!r="> reJ8=reBe"t A!; "ot ob;erEe#, b8t bec!8;e t:ere A!; "o H8;t
c!8;e =" t:e #=;B=;;!<. The opportunit3 to dispute the findin, of the Eust cause is
readil3 available before the /abor %rbiter, and the subseHuent levels of appellate revie..
%,ain, as held in Serrano6
ven in cases of dis0issal under %rt. 1+1, the purpose for the reHuire0ent of notice and
hearin, is not to co0pl3 .ith the Due Process !lause of the !onstitution. The ti0e for
notice and hearin, is at the trial sta,e. Then that is the ti0e .e spea: of notice and
hearin, as the essence of procedural due process. Thus, co0pliance b3 the e0plo3er
.ith the notice reHuire0ent before he dis0isses an e0plo3ee does not foreclose the
ri,ht of the latter to Huestion the le,alit3 of his dis0issal. %s %rt. 1BB"b$ provides, A%n3
decision ta:en b3 the e0plo3er shall be .ithout preEudice to the ri,ht of the .or:er to
contest the validit3 or le,alit3 of his dis0issal b3 filin, a co0plaint .ith the re,ional
branch of the National /abor Relations !o00ission.
-1
The /abor !ode presents no te@tuall3 de0onstrable co00it0ent to invalidate a
dis0issal for Eust cause due to the absence of notice or hearin,. This is not surprisin,,
as such re0ed3 .ill not restore the e0plo3er or e0plo3ee into eHuit3. %bsent a sho.in,
of inte,ral causation, the 0utual infliction of .ron,s does not ne,ate either inEur3, but
instead enforces t.o independent ri,hts of relief.
5he #amages: #imensions
%ward for #amages Must 8ave Statutory &asis
The !ourt has ,rappled .ith the proble0 of .hat should be the proper re0edial relief of
an e0plo3ee dis0issed .ith Eust cause, but not afforded either notice or hearin,. In a
lon, line of cases, be,innin, .ith 3enphil Corp. v. +,-C
-=
and up until Serrano in
1))), the !ourt had dee0ed an inde0nification a.ard as sufficient to ans.er for the
violation b3 the e0plo3er a,ainst the e0plo3ee. Ho.ever, the doctrine .as 0odified in
Serrano.
I disa,ree .ith Serrano insofar as it held that e0plo3ees ter0inated for Eust cause are to
be paid bac:.a,es fro0 the ti0e e0plo30ent .as ter0inated Auntil it is deter0ined that
the ter0ination is for Eust cause because the failure to hear hi0 before he is dis0issed
renders the ter0ination of his e0plo30ent .ithout le,al effect.A
-4
%rticle 1B* of the
/abor !ode clearl3 authori<es the pa30ent of bac:.a,es onl3 if an e0plo3ee is
unEustl3 dis0issed. % dis0issal for Eust cause is obviousl3 antithetical to an unEust
dis0issal. %n a.ard for bac:.a,es is not clearl3 .arranted b3 the la..
5he 'mpropriety of %ward for Separation Pay
The for0ula of one 0onthKs pa3 for ever3 3ear served does have statutor3 basis. It is
found thou,h in the /abor !ode thou,h, not the !ivil !ode. ven then, such
co0putation is 0ade for separation pa3 under the /abor !ode. 7ut separation pa3 is
not an appropriate as a re0ed3 in this case, or in an3 case .herein an e0plo3ee is
ter0inated for Eust cause. %s 2ustice Vitu, noted in his separate opinion in Serrano, an
e0plo3ee .hose e0plo30ent is ter0inated for a Eust cause is not entitled to the
pa30ent of separation benefits.
-(
Separation pa3 is traditionall3 a 0onetar3 a.ard paid
as an alternative to reinstate0ent .hich can no lon,er be effected in vie. of the lon,
passa,e of ti0e or because of the realities of the situation.
--
Ho.ever, under Section B,
Rule #, 7oo: VI of the O0nibus Rules I0ple0entin, the /abor !ode, AMtNhe separation
fro0 .or: of an e0plo3ee for a Eust cause does not entitle hi0 to the ter0ination pa3
provided in the !ode.A
-B
Neither does the /abor !ode itself provide instances .herein
separation pa3 is .arranted for dis0issals .ith Eust cause. Separation pa3 is .arranted
onl3 for dis0issals for authori<ed causes, as enu0erated in %rticle 1+= and 1+4 of the
/abor !ode.
5he 'mpropriety of ;2uity %wards
%d0ittedl3, the !ourt has in the past authori<ed the a.ard of separation pa3 for dul3
ter0inated e0plo3ees as a 0easure of social Eustice, provided that the e0plo3ee is not
,uilt3 of serious 0isconduct reflectin, on 0oral character.
-+
This doctrine is inapplicable
in this case, as the %,abons are ,uilt3 of abandon0ent, .hich is the deliberate and
unEustified refusal of an e0plo3ee to resu0e his e0plo30ent. %bandon0ent is
tanta0ount to serious 0isconduct, as it constitutes a .illful breach of the e0plo3er&
e0plo3ee relationship .ithout cause.
The a.ard of separation pa3 as a 0easure of social Eustice has no statutor3 basis, but
clearl3 e0anates fro0 the !ourtKs so&called AeHuit3 Eurisdiction.A The !ourtKs eHuit3
Eurisdiction as a basis for a.ard, no 0atter .hat for0 it 0a3 ta:e, is li:e.ise
un.arranted in this case. as3 resort to eHuit3 should be avoided, as it should 3ield to
positive rules .hich pre&e0pt and prevail over such persuasions.
-*
%bstract as the
concept is, it does not ad0it to definite and obEective standards.
I consider the pronounce0ent re,ardin, the proper 0onetar3 a.ards in such cases as
3enphil Corp. v. +,-C,
B)
-eta,
B#
and to a de,ree, even Serrano as pre0ised in part on
eHuit3. This decision is pre0ised in part due to the absence of cited statutor3 basis for
these a.ards. In these cases, the !ourt dee0ed an inde0nit3 a.ard proper .ithout
e@actl3 sa3in, .here in statute could such a.ard be derived at. Perhaps, eHuit3 or
social Eustice can be invo:ed as basis for the a.ard. Ho.ever, this sort of arbitrariness,
indeter0inac3 and Eudicial usurpation of le,islative prero,atives is precisel3 the source
of 03 discontent. Social Eustice should be the aspiration of all that .e do, 3et I thin: it
the 0ore 0ature attitude to consider that it ebbs and flo.s .ithin our statutes, rather
than vie. it as an independent source of fundin,.
%rticle <== of the ,abor Code as a Source of ,iability
%nother putative source of liabilit3 for failure to render the notice reHuire0ent is %rticle
1++ of the /abor !ode, .hich states6
%rticle 1++ states6
Penalties. R @cept as other.ise provided in this !ode, or unless the acts
co0plained of hin,es on a Huestion of interpretation or i0ple0entation of
a0bi,uous provisions of an e@istin, collective bar,ainin, a,ree0ent, an3
violation of the provisions of this !ode declared to be unla.ful or penal in
nature shall be punished .ith a fine of not less than One Thousand Pesos
"P#,))).))$ nor 0ore than Ten Thousand Pesos "P#),))).))$, or
i0prison0ent of not less than three 0onths nor 0ore than three 3ears, or
both such fine and i0prison0ent at the discretion of the court.
It is apparent fro0 the provision that the penalt3 arises due to contraventions of the
provisions of the /abor !ode. It is also clear that the provision co0es into pla3
re,ardless of .ho the violator 0a3 be. ither the e0plo3er or the e0plo3ee 0a3 be
penali<ed, or perhaps even officials tas:ed .ith i0ple0entin, the /abor !ode.
Ho.ever, it is apparent that %rticle 1++ is a penal provisionJ hence, the prescription for
penalties such as fine and i0prison0ent. The %rticle is also e@plicit that the i0position
of fine or i0prison0ent is at the Adiscretion of the court.A Thus, the proceedin,s under
the provision is penal in character. The cri0inal case has to be instituted before the
proper courts, and the /abor !ode violation subEect thereof dul3 proven in an
adversarial proceedin,. Hence, %rticle 1++ cannot appl3 in this case and serve as basis
to i0pose a penalt3 on Riviera Ho0es.
I also 0aintain that under %rticle 1++ the penalt3 should be paid to the State, and not to
the person or persons .ho 0a3 have suffered inEur3 as a result of the violation. %
penalt3 is a su0 of 0one3 .hich the la. reHuires to be paid b3 .a3 of punish0ent for
doin, so0e act .hich is prohibited or for not doin, so0e act .hich is reHuired to be
done.
B1
% penalt3 should be distin,uished fro0 da0a,es .hich is the pecuniar3
co0pensation or inde0nit3 to a person .ho has suffered loss, detri0ent, or inEur3,
.hether to his person, propert3, or ri,hts, on account of the unla.ful act or o0ission or
ne,li,ence of another. %rticle 1++ clearl3 serves as a punitive fine, rather than a
co0pensator3 0easure, since the provision penali<es an act that violates the /abor
!ode even if such act does not cause actual inEur3 to an3 private person.
Independent of the e0plo3eeKs interests protected b3 the /abor !ode is the interest of
the State in seein, to it that its re,ulator3 la.s are co0plied .ith. %rticle 1++ is intended
to satiate the latter interest. Nothin, in the lan,ua,e of %rticle 1++ indicates an intention
to co0pensate or re0unerate a private person for inEur3 he 0a3 have sustained.
It should be noted thou,h that in Serrano, the !ourt observed that since the
pro0ul,ation of 3enphil Corp. v. +,-C
B=
in #*+*, Afines i0posed for violations of the
notice reHuire0ent have varied fro0 P#,))).)) to P1,))).)) to P(,))).)) to
P#),))).)).A
B4
Interestin,l3, this ran,e is the sa0e ran,e of the penalties i0posed b3
%rticle 1++. These AfinesA adverted to in Serrano .ere paid to the dis0issed e0plo3ee.
The use of the ter0 Afines,A as .ell as the ter0inolo,3 e0plo3ed a fe. other cases,
B(

0a3 have left an erroneous i0pression that the a.ard i0ple0ented be,innin, .ith
3enphil .as based on %rticle 1++ of the /abor !ode. Fet, an e@a0ination of 3enphil
reveals that .hat the !ourt actuall3 a.arded to the e0plo3ee .as an Ainde0nit3A,
dependent on the facts of each case and the ,ravit3 of the o0ission co00itted b3 the
e0plo3er. There is no 0ention in 3enphil of %rticle 1++ of the /abor !ode, or indeed, of
an3 statutor3 basis for the a.ard.
5he Proper &asis1 ;mployer:s ,iability under the Civil Code
%s earlier stated, 3enphil allo.ed the pa30ent of inde0nit3 to the e0plo3ee dis0issed
for Eust cause is dependent on the facts of each case and the ,ravit3 of the o0ission
co00itted b3 the e0plo3er. Ho.ever, I considered 3enphil fla.ed insofar as it is silent
as to the statutor3 basis for the inde0nit3 a.ard. This failure, to 03 0ind, renders it
un.ise for to reinstate the 3enphil rule, and foster the i0pression that it is the Eudicial
business to invent a.ards for da0a,es .ithout clear statutor3 basis.
T:e @ro@er <e>!< b!;=; ?or :o<#="> t:e eB@<o(er <=!b<e ?or Bo"et!r( #!B!>e; to
t:e eB@<o(ee #=;B=;;e# ?or H8;t c!8;e =; t:e C=E=< Co#e. T:e !A!r# o? #!B!>e;
;:o8<# be Be!;8re# !>!=";t t:e <o;; or ="H8r( ;8??ere# b( t:e eB@<o(ee b(
re!;o" o? t:e eB@<o(erK; E=o<!t=o" or, =" c!;e o? "oB="!< #!B!>e;, t:e r=>:t
E="#=c!te# b( t:e !A!r#. T:=; =; t:e @ro@er @!r!#=>B !8t:or=Fe# b( o8r <!A, !"#
#e;=>"e# to obt!=" t:e ?!=re;t @o;;=b<e re<=e?.
>nder Section 1#B"4$ of the /abor !ode, the /abor %rbiter has Eurisdiction over clai0s
for actual, 0oral, e@e0plar3 and other for0s of da0a,es arisin, fro0 the e0plo3er&
e0plo3ee relations. It is thus the dut3 of /abor %rbiters to adEudicate clai0s for
da0a,es, and the3 should disabuse the0selves of an3 inhibitions if it does appear that
an a.ard for da0a,es is .arranted. %s triers of facts in a speciali<ed field, the3 should
attune the0selves to the particular conditions or proble0s attendant to e0plo3er&
e0plo3ee relationships, and thus be in the best possible position as to the nature and
a0ount of da0a,es that 0a3 be .arranted in this case.
The da0a,es referred under Section 1#B"4$ of the /abor !ode are those available
under the !ivil !ode. It is but proper that the !ivil !ode serve as the basis for the
inde0nit3, it bein, the la. that re,ulates the private relations of the 0e0bers of civil
societ3, deter0inin, their respective ri,hts and obli,ations .ith reference to persons,
thin,s, and civil acts.
B-
No 0atter ho. i0pressed .ith the public interest the relationship
bet.een a private e0plo3er and e0plo3ee is, it still is ulti0atel3 a relationship bet.een
private individuals. Notabl3, even thou,h the /abor !ode could ver3 .ell have provided
set rules for da0a,es arisin, fro0 the e0plo3er&e0plo3ee relationship, referral .as
instead 0ade to the concept of da0a,es as enu0erated and defined under the !ivil
!ode.
'iven the lon, controvers3 that has do,,ed this present issue re,ardin, dis0issals for
Eust cause, it is .ise to la3 do.n standards that .ould ,uide the proper a.ard of
da0a,es under the !ivil !ode in cases .herein the e0plo3er failed to co0pl3 .ith
statutor3 due process in dis0issals for Eust cause.
7irst. I believe that it can be 0aintained as a ,eneral rule, that failure to co0pl3 .ith the
statutor3 reHuire0ent of notice auto0aticall3 ,ives rise to no0inal da0a,es, at the ver3
least, even if the dis0issal .as sustained for Eust cause.
No0inal da0a,es are adEudicated in order that a ri,ht of a plaintiff .hich has been
violated or invaded b3 another 0a3 be vindicated or reco,ni<ed .ithout havin, to
inde0nif3 the plaintiff for an3 loss suffered b3 hi0.
BB
No0inal da0a,es 0a3 li:e.ise be
a.arded in ever3 obli,ation arisin, fro0 la., contracts, Huasi&contracts, acts or
o0issions punished b3 la., and Huasi&delicts, or .here an3 propert3 ri,ht has been
invaded.
!learl3, the bare act of failin, to observe the notice reHuire0ent ,ives rise to no0inal
da0a,es assessable a,ainst the e0plo3er and due the e0plo3ee. The /abor !ode
indubitabl3 entitles the e0plo3ee to notice even if dis0issal is for Eust cause, even if
there is no apparent intent to void such dis0issals deficientl3 i0ple0ented. It has also
been held that oneKs e0plo30ent, profession, trade, or callin, is a Apropert3 ri,htA and
the .ron,ful interference there.ith ,ives rise to an actionable .ron,.
B+
In &etter &uildings, 'nc. v. +,-C,
B*
the !ourt ruled that the .hile the ter0ination therein
.as for Eust and valid cause, the 0anner of ter0ination .as done in co0plete disre,ard
of the necessar3 procedural safe,uards.
+)
The !ourt found no0inal da0a,es as the
proper for0 of a.ard, as it .as purposed to vindicate the ri,ht to procedural due
process violated b3 the e0plo3er.
+#
% si0ilar holdin, .as 0aintained in 'ran v. +,-C
+1

and Malaya Shipping v. +,-C.
+=
The doctrine has e@press statutor3 basis, dul3
reco,ni<es the e@istence of the ri,ht to notice, and vindicates the violation of such ri,ht.
It is sound, lo,ical, and should be adopted as a ,eneral rule.
The assess0ent of no0inal da0a,es is left to the discretion of the court,
+4
or in labor
cases, of the /abor %rbiter and the successive appellate levels. The authorit3 to
no0inate standards ,overnin, the a.ard of no0inal da0a,es has clearl3 been
dele,ated to the Eudicial branch, and it .ill serve ,ood purpose for this !ourt to provide
such ,uidelines. !onsiderin, that the affected ri,ht is a propert3 ri,ht, there is
Eustification in basin, the a0ount of no0inal da0a,es on the particular characteristics
attachin, to the clai0antKs e0plo30ent. 8actors such as len,th of service, positions
held, and received salar3 0a3 be considered to obtain the proper 0easure of no0inal
da0a,es. %fter all, the de,ree b3 .hich a propert3 ri,ht should be vindicated is affected
b3 the esti0able value of such ri,ht.
%t the sa0e ti0e, it should be reco,ni<ed that no0inal da0a,es are not 0eant to be
co0pensator3, and should not be co0puted throu,h a for0ula based on actual losses.
!onseHuentl3, no0inal da0a,es usuall3 li0ited in pecuniar3 value.
+(
This fact should be
i0pressed upon the prospective clai0ant, especiall3 one .ho is conte0platin, see:in,
actualCco0pensator3 da0a,es.
Second. %ctual or co0pensator3 da0a,es are not available as a 0atter of ri,ht to an
e0plo3ee dis0issed for Eust cause but denied statutor3 due process. The3 0ust be
based on clear factual and le,al bases,
+-
and correspond to such pecuniar3 loss
suffered b3 the e0plo3ee as dul3 proven.
+B
videntl3, there is less de,ree of discretion
to a.ard actual or co0pensator3 da0a,es.
I reco,ni<e so0e inherent difficulties in establishin, actual da0a,es in cases for
ter0inations validated for Eust cause. The dis0issed e0plo3ee retains no ri,ht to
continued e0plo30ent fro0 the 0o0ent Eust cause for ter0ination e@ists, and such ti0e
0ost li:el3 .ould have arrived even before the e0plo3er is liable to send the first notice.
%s a result, an a.ard of bac:.a,es dis,uised as actual da0a,es .ould al0ost never
be Eustified if the e0plo3ee .as dis0issed for Eust cause. The possible e@ception .ould
be if it can be proven the ,round for Eust cause ca0e into bein, onl3 after the dis0issed
e0plo3ee had stopped receivin, .a,es fro0 the e0plo3er.
Fet it is not i0possible to establish a case for actual da0a,es if dis0issal .as for Eust
cause. Particularl3 actionable, for e@a0ple, is if the notices are not served on the
e0plo3ee, thus ha0perin, hisCher opportunities to obtain ne. e0plo30ent. 8or as lon,
as it can be de0onstrated that the failure of the e0plo3er to observe procedural due
process 0andated b3 the /abor !ode is the pro@i0ate cause of pecuniar3 loss or inEur3
to the dis0issed e0plo3ee, then actual or co0pensator3 da0a,es 0a3 be a.arded.
5hird. If there is a findin, of pecuniar3 loss arisin, fro0 the e0plo3er violation, but the
a0ount cannot be proved .ith certaint3, then te0perate or 0oderate da0a,es are
available under %rticle 1114 of the !ivil !ode. %,ain, sufficient discretion is afforded to
the adEudicator as re,ards the proper a.ard, and the a.ard 0ust be reasonable under
the circu0stances.
++
Te0perate or no0inal da0a,es 0a3 3et prove to be a plausible
re0ed3, especiall3 .hen co00on sense dictates that pecuniar3 loss .as suffered, but
incapable of precise definition.
7ourth. Moral and e@e0plar3 da0a,es 0a3 also be a.arded in the appropriate
circu0stances. %s pointed out b3 the #ecision, 0oral da0a,es are recoverable .here
the dis0issal of the e0plo3ee .as attended b3 bad faith, fraud, or .as done in a
0anner contrar3 to 0orals, ,ood custo0s or public polic3, or the e0plo3er co00itted
an act oppressive to labor.
+*
@e0plar3 da0a,es 0a3 avail if the dis0issal .as effected
in a .anton, oppressive or 0alevolent 0anner.
%ppropriate %ward of #amages to the %gabons
The records indicate no proof e@ists to Eustif3 the a.ard of actual or co0pensator3
da0a,es, as it has not been established that the failure to serve the second notice on
the %,abons .as the pro@i0ate cause to an3 loss or inEur3. In fact, there is not even an3
sho.in, that such violation caused an3 sort of inEur3 or disco0fort to the %,abons. Nor
do the3 assert such causal relation. Thus, the onl3 appropriate a.ard of da0a,es is
no0inal da0a,es. !onsiderin, the circu0stances, I a,ree that an a.ard of 8ifteen
Thousand Pesos "P#(,))).))$ each for the %,abons is sufficient.
%ll pre0ises considered, I VOT to6
"#$ DNF the PTITION for lac: of 0erit, and %88IRM the #ecision of the
!ourt of %ppeals dated 1= 2anuar3 1))=, .ith the MODI8I!%TION that in
addition, Riviera Ho0es be
ORDRD to pa3 the petitioners the su0 of 8ifteen Thousand Pesos
"P#(,))).))$ each, as no0inal da0a,es.
"1$ HO/D that henceforth, dis0issals for Eust cause 0a3 not be invalidated
due to the failure to observe the due process reHuire0ents under the
/abor !ode, and that the onl3 inde0nit3 a.ard available to the e0plo3ee
dis0issed for Eust cause are da0a,es under the !ivil !ode as dul3
proven. %n3 and all previous rulin,s and state0ents of the !ourt
inconsistent .ith this holdin, are no. dee0ed INOPR%TIV.
%ANTE O. TINGA
%ssociate Justice
EN BANC


JENNY M. AGABON and '0R0 No0 112394
VIRGILIO C. AGABON,
5etitioners, 5resent:

2$vi%e, )r&, C&J&,
Puno,
P$n($nib$n,
Nuisu'bin(,
Yn$res-S$nti$(o,
S$n%ov$l-GutierreE,
- versus - "$rpio,
Austri$-$rtineE,
"oron$,
"$rpio-or$les,
"$lle:o, Sr&,
AEcun$,
Tin($,
"hico-N$E$rio, $n%
G$rci$, JJ&
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION /NLRC0, RIVIERA
HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. Pro'ul($te%:
an1 VICENTE ANGELES,
Respon%ents& Nove'ber +-, *,,5
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

DECISION


YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

This petition for revie/ see?s to reverse the %ecision
3+4
of the "ourt of
Appe$ls %$te% )$nu$r0 *A, *,,A, in "A-G&R& SP No& 6A,+-, 'o%if0in( the
%ecision of N$tion$l B$bor Rel$tions "o''ission 8NBR"9 in NBR"-N"R "$se
No& ,*A55*-,,&

Priv$te respon%ent Rivier$ #o'e I'prove'ents, Inc& is en($(e% in the
business of sellin( $n% inst$llin( orn$'ent$l $n% construction '$teri$ls& It
e'plo0e% petitioners Fir(ilio A($bon $n% )enn0 A($bon $s (0psu' bo$r%
$n% cornice inst$llers on )$nu$r0 *, +11*
3*4
until >ebru$r0 *A, +111 /hen the0
/ere %is'isse% for $b$n%on'ent of /or?&

Petitioners then 7le% $ co'pl$int for ille($l %is'iss$l $n% p$0'ent of
'one0 cl$i's
3A4
$n% on 2ece'ber *;, +111, the B$bor Arbiter ren%ere% $
%ecision %ecl$rin( the %is'iss$ls ille($l $n% or%ere% priv$te respon%ent to
p$0 the 'onet$r0 cl$i's& The %ispositive portion of the %ecision st$tes:

WHEREFRE, premises considered, We (ind the termination o( the
complainants ille#al0 Accordin#l$, respondent is hereb$ ordered to pa$ them their
bac)*a#es "p to November 69, 1999 in the s"m o(:

10 7enn$ &0 A#abon 8 513, 641094
60 9ir#ilio :0 A#abon 8 13, 641094

and, in lie" o( reinstatement to pa$ them their separation pa$ o( one ,1. month (or
ever$ $ear o( service (rom date o( hirin# "p to November 69, 19990

Respondent is ("rther ordered to pa$ the complainants their holida$ pa$
and service incentive leave pa$ (or the $ears 1993, 199- and 1992 as *ell as their
premi"m pa$ (or holida$s and rest da$s and 9ir#ilio A#abon/s 14
th
month pa$
di((erential amo"ntin# to ;W ;H<%AND NE H<NDRED FIF;=
,56,11>0>>. 5esos, or the a##re#ate amo"nt o( NE H<NDRED ;WEN;= NE
;H<%AND %I? H<NDRED %E9EN;= EI'H; @ 94A1>> ,5161,3-2094.
5esos (or 7enn$ A#abon, and NE H<NDRED ;WEN;= ;HREE ;H<%AND
EI'H; H<NDRED ;WEN;= EI'H; @ 94A1>> ,5164,262094. 5esos (or
9ir#ilio A#abon, as per attached comp"tation o( 7"lieta :0 Nicolas, I:, Research
and :omp"tation <nit, N:R0

% RDERED0
BCD



n appeal, the NLR: reversed the Labor Arbiter beca"se it (o"nd that the petitioners had
abandoned their *or), and *ere not entitled to bac)*a#es and separation pa$0 ;he other mone$
claims a*arded b$ the Labor Arbiter *ere also denied (or lac) o( evidence0
B1D

<pon denial o( their motion (or reconsideration, petitioners (iled a petition (or certiorari
*ith the :o"rt o( Appeals0

;he :o"rt o( Appeals in t"rn r"led that the dismissal o( the petitioners *as not ille#al
beca"se the$ had abandoned their emplo$ment b"t ordered the pa$ment o( mone$ claims0 ;he
dispositive portion o( the decision reads:

WHEREFRE, the decision o( the National Labor Relations :ommission
is RE9ER%ED onl$ inso(ar as it dismissed petitioner/s mone$ claims0 5rivate
respondents are ordered to pa$ petitioners holida$ pa$ (or (o"r ,C. re#"lar
holida$s in 1993, 199-, and 1992, as *ell as their service incentive leave pa$ (or
said $ears, and to pa$ the balance o( petitioner 9ir#ilio A#abon/s 14
th
month pa$
(or 1992 in the amo"nt o( 56,11>0>>0

% RDERED0
B3D


Hence, this petition (or revie* on the sole iss"e o( *hether petitioners *ere ille#all$
dismissed0
B-D

5etitioners assert that the$ *ere dismissed beca"se the private respondent re("sed to #ive
them assi#nments "nless the$ a#reed to *or) on a pakyaw basis *hen the$ reported (or d"t$
on Febr"ar$ 64, 19990 ;he$ did not a#ree on this arran#ement beca"se it *o"ld mean losin#
bene(its as %ocial %ec"rit$ %$stem ,%%%. members0 5etitioners also claim that private
respondent did not compl$ *ith the t*in reE"irements o( notice and hearin#0
B2D


5rivate respondent, on the other hand, maintained that petitioners *ere not dismissed b"t
had abandoned their *or)0
B9D
In (act, private respondent sent t*o letters to the last )no*n
addresses o( the petitioners advisin# them to report (or *or)0 5rivate respondent/s mana#er even
tal)ed to petitioner 9ir#ilio A#abon b$ telephone sometime in 7"ne 1999 to tell him abo"t the
ne* assi#nment at 5aci(ic 5laFa ;o*ers involvin# C>,>>> sE"are meters o( cornice installation
*or)0 Ho*ever, petitioners did not report (or *or) beca"se the$ had s"bcontracted to per(orm
installation *or) (or another compan$0 5etitioners also demanded (or an increase in their *a#e
to 562>0>> per da$0 When this *as not #ranted, petitioners stopped reportin# (or *or) and (iled
the ille#al dismissal case0
B1>D


It is *ell8settled that (indin#s o( (act o( E"asi8!"dicial a#encies li)e the NLR: are accorded
not onl$ respect b"t even (inalit$ i( the (indin#s are s"pported b$ s"bstantial evidence0 ;his is
especiall$ so *hen s"ch (indin#s *ere a((irmed b$ the :o"rt o( Appeals0
B11D
Ho*ever, i( the
(act"al (indin#s o( the NLR: and the Labor Arbiter are con(lictin#, as in this case, the revie*in#
co"rt ma$ delve into the records and e+amine (or itsel( the E"estioned (indin#s0
B16D

Accordin#l$, the :o"rt o( Appeals, a(ter a care("l revie* o( the (acts, r"led that
petitioners/ dismissal *as (or a !"st ca"se0 ;he$ had abandoned their emplo$ment and *ere
alread$ *or)in# (or another emplo$er0

;o dismiss an emplo$ee, the la* reE"ires not onl$ the e+istence o( a !"st and valid ca"se
b"t also en!oins the emplo$er to #ive the emplo$ee the opport"nit$ to be heard and to de(end
himsel(0
B14D
Article 626 o( the Labor :ode en"merates the !"st ca"ses (or termination b$ the
emplo$er: ,a. serio"s miscond"ct or *ill("l disobedience b$ the emplo$ee o( the la*("l orders
o( his emplo$er or the latter/s representative in connection *ith the emplo$ee/s *or)G ,b. #ross
and habit"al ne#lect b$ the emplo$ee o( his d"tiesG ,c. (ra"d or *ill("l breach b$ the emplo$ee o(
the tr"st reposed in him b$ his emplo$er or his d"l$ a"thoriFed representativeG ,d. commission o(
a crime or o((ense b$ the emplo$ee a#ainst the person o( his emplo$er or an$ immediate member
o( his (amil$ or his d"l$ a"thoriFed representativeG and ,e. other ca"ses analo#o"s to the
(ore#oin#0

Abandonment is the deliberate and "n!"sti(ied re("sal o( an emplo$ee to res"me his
emplo$ment0
B1CD
It is a (orm o( ne#lect o( d"t$, hence, a !"st ca"se (or termination o( emplo$ment
b$ the emplo$er0
B11D
For a valid (indin# o( abandonment, these t*o (actors sho"ld be present: ,1.
the (ail"re to report (or *or) or absence *itho"t valid or !"sti(iable reasonG and ,6. a clear
intention to sever emplo$er8emplo$ee relationship, *ith the second as the more determinative
(actor *hich is mani(ested b$ overt acts (rom *hich it ma$ be ded"ced that the emplo$ees has no
more intention to *or)0 ;he intent to discontin"e the emplo$ment m"st be sho*n b$ clear proo(
that it *as deliberate and "n!"sti(ied0
B13D

In Febr"ar$ 1999, petitioners *ere (reE"entl$ absent havin# s"bcontracted (or an
installation *or) (or another compan$0 %"bcontractin# (or another compan$ clearl$ sho*ed the
intention to sever the emplo$er8emplo$ee relationship *ith private respondent0 ;his *as not the
(irst time the$ did this0 In 7an"ar$ 1993, the$ did not report (or *or) beca"se the$ *ere *or)in#
(or another compan$0 5rivate respondent at that time *arned petitioners that the$ *o"ld be
dismissed i( this happened a#ain0 5etitioners disre#arded the *arnin# and e+hibited a clear
intention to sever their emplo$er8emplo$ee relationship0 ;he record o( an emplo$ee is a relevant
consideration in determinin# the penalt$ that sho"ld be meted o"t to him0
B1-D

In Sandoval Shipyard v. Clave,
B12D
*e held that an emplo$ee *ho deliberatel$ absented (rom
*or) *itho"t leave or permission (rom his emplo$er, (or the p"rpose o( loo)in# (or a !ob
else*here, is considered to have abandoned his !ob0 We sho"ld appl$ that r"le *ith more reason
here *here petitioners *ere absent beca"se the$ *ere alread$ *or)in# in another compan$0

;he la* imposes man$ obli#ations on the emplo$er s"ch as providin# !"st compensation
to *or)ers, observance o( the proced"ral reE"irements o( notice and hearin# in the termination o(
emplo$ment0 n the other hand, the la* also reco#niFes the ri#ht o( the emplo$er to e+pect
(rom its *or)ers not onl$ #ood per(ormance, adeE"ate *or) and dili#ence, b"t also #ood
cond"ct
B19D
and lo$alt$0 ;he emplo$er ma$ not be compelled to contin"e to emplo$ s"ch persons
*hose contin"ance in the service *ill patentl$ be inimical to his interests0
B6>D

A(ter establishin# that the terminations *ere (or a !"st and valid ca"se, *e no* determine
i( the proced"res (or dismissal *ere observed0

;he proced"re (or terminatin# an emplo$ee is (o"nd in Hoo) 9I, R"le I, %ection 6,d. o(
the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code:

Standards o due pro!ess" re#uirements o noti!e0 I In all cases o(
termination o( emplo$ment, the (ollo*in# standards o( d"e process shall be
s"bstantiall$ observed:

I0 For termination o( emplo$ment based on !"st ca"ses as de(ined in
Article 626 o( the :ode:

,a. A *ritten notice served on the emplo$ee speci($in# the #ro"nd or
#ro"nds (or termination, and #ivin# to said emplo$ee reasonable opport"nit$
*ithin *hich to e+plain his sideG

,b. A hearin# or con(erence d"rin# *hich the emplo$ee concerned,
*ith the assistance o( co"nsel i( the emplo$ee so desires, is #iven opport"nit$ to
respond to the char#e, present his evidence or reb"t the evidence presented a#ainst
himG and

,c. A *ritten notice o( termination served on the emplo$ee indicatin#
that "pon d"e consideration o( all the circ"mstances, #ro"nds have been
established to !"sti($ his termination0

In case o( termination, the (ore#oin# notices shall be served on the
emplo$ee/s last )no*n address0

Dismissals based on !"st ca"ses contemplate acts or omissions attrib"table to the
emplo$ee *hile dismissals based on a"thoriFed ca"ses involve #ro"nds "nder the Labor :ode
*hich allo* the emplo$er to terminate emplo$ees0 A termination (or an a"thoriFed ca"se reE"ires
pa$ment o( separation pa$0 When the termination o( emplo$ment is declared ille#al,
reinstatement and ("ll bac)*a#es are mandated "nder Article 6-90 I( reinstatement is no lon#er
possible *here the dismissal *as "n!"st, separation pa$ ma$ be #ranted0

5roced"rall$, ,1. i( the dismissal is based on a !"st ca"se "nder Article 626, the emplo$er
m"st #ive the emplo$ee t*o *ritten notices and a hearin# or opport"nit$ to be heard i( reE"ested
b$ the emplo$ee be(ore terminatin# the emplo$ment: a notice speci($in# the #ro"nds (or *hich
dismissal is so"#ht a hearin# or an opport"nit$ to be heard and a(ter hearin# or opport"nit$ to be
heard, a notice o( the decision to dismissG and ,6. i( the dismissal is based on a"thoriFed ca"ses
"nder Articles 624 and 62C, the emplo$er m"st #ive the emplo$ee and the Department o( Labor
and Emplo$ment *ritten notices 4> da$s prior to the e((ectivit$ o( his separation0

From the (ore#oin# r"les (o"r possible sit"ations ma$ be derived: ,1. the dismissal is (or a
!"st ca"se "nder Article 626 o( the Labor :ode, (or an a"thoriFed ca"se "nder Article 624, or (or
health reasons "nder Article 62C, and d"e process *as observedG ,6. the dismissal is *itho"t !"st
or a"thoriFed ca"se b"t d"e process *as observedG ,4. the dismissal is *itho"t !"st or a"thoriFed
ca"se and there *as no d"e processG and ,C. the dismissal is (or !"st or a"thoriFed ca"se b"t d"e
process *as not observed0

In the (irst sit"ation, the dismissal is "ndo"btedl$ valid and the emplo$er *ill not s"((er
an$ liabilit$0

In the second and third sit"ations *here the dismissals are ille#al, Article 6-9 mandates
that the emplo$ee is entitled to reinstatement *itho"t loss o( seniorit$ ri#hts and other privile#es
and ("ll bac)*a#es, incl"sive o( allo*ances, and other bene(its or their monetar$ eE"ivalent
comp"ted (rom the time the compensation *as not paid "p to the time o( act"al reinstatement0

In the (o"rth sit"ation, the dismissal sho"ld be "pheld0 While the proced"ral in(irmit$
cannot be c"red, it sho"ld not invalidate the dismissal0 Ho*ever, the emplo$er sho"ld be held
liable or non$!omplian!e with the pro!edural re#uirements o due pro!ess0

;he present case sE"arel$ (alls "nder the (o"rth sit"ation0 ;he dismissal sho"ld be "pheld
beca"se it *as established that the petitioners abandoned their !obs to *or) (or another
compan$0 5rivate respondent, ho*ever, did not (ollo* the notice reE"irements and instead
ar#"ed that sendin# notices to the last )no*n addresses *o"ld have been "seless beca"se the$
did not reside there an$more0 <n(ort"natel$ (or the private respondent, this is not a valid e+c"se
beca"se the la* mandates the t*in notice reE"irements to the emplo$ee/s last )no*n address0
B61D

;h"s, it sho"ld be held liable or non$!omplian!e with the pro!edural re#uirements o due
pro!ess0

A revie* and re8e+amination o( the relevant le#al principles is appropriate and timel$ to
clari($ the vario"s r"lin#s on emplo$ment termination in the li#ht o( Serrano v. %ational Labor
Relations Commission0
B66D

5rior to 1929, the r"le *as that a dismissal or termination is ille#al i( the emplo$ee *as not
#iven an$ notice0 In the 1929 case o( &enphil Corp. v. %ational Labor Relations Commission,
B64D

*e reversed this lon#8standin# r"le and held that the dismissed emplo$ee, altho"#h not #iven an$
notice and hearin#, *as not entitled to reinstatement and bac)*a#es beca"se the dismissal *as
(or #rave miscond"ct and ins"bordination, a !"st #ro"nd (or termination "nder Article 6260 ;he
emplo$ee had a violent temper and ca"sed tro"ble d"rin# o((ice ho"rs, de($in# s"periors *ho
tried to paci($ him0 We concl"ded that reinstatin# the emplo$ee and a*ardin# bac)*a#es Jma$
enco"ra#e him to do even *orse and *ill render a moc)er$ o( the r"les o( discipline that
emplo$ees are reE"ired to observe0K
B6CD
We ("rther held that:

<nder the circ"mstances, the dismissal o( the private respondent (or !"st
ca"se sho"ld be maintained0 He has no ri#ht to ret"rn to his (ormer emplo$ment0

Ho*ever, the petitioner m"st nevertheless be held to acco"nt (or (ail"re to
e+tend to private respondent his ri#ht to an investi#ation be(ore ca"sin# his
dismissal0 ;he r"le is e+plicit as above disc"ssed0 ;he dismissal o( an emplo$ee
m"st be or 'ust or authorized !ause and ater due pro!ess0 5etitioner committed
an in(raction o( the second reE"irement0 ;h"s, it m"st be imposed a sanction (or
its (ail"re to #ive a (ormal notice and cond"ct an investi#ation as reE"ired b$ la*
be(ore dismissin# petitioner (rom emplo$ment0 :onsiderin# the circ"mstances o(
this case petitioner m"st indemni($ the private respondent the amo"nt o(
51,>>>0>>0 ;he meas"re o( this a*ard depends on the (acts o( each case and the
#ravit$ o( the omission committed b$ the emplo$er0
B61D

The rule thus evolve%: /here the e'plo0er h$% $ v$li% re$son to
%is'iss $n e'plo0ee but %i% not follo/ the %ue process re<uire'ent, the
%is'iss$l '$0 be uphel% but the e'plo0er /ill be pen$liEe% to p$0 $n
in%e'nit0 to the e'plo0ee& This bec$'e ?no/n $s the ,enphil or Gel$te%
2ue Process Rule&

On )$nu$r0 *-, *,,,, in 'errano, the rule on the e.tent of the s$nction
/$s ch$n(e%& Ce hel% th$t the viol$tion b0 the e'plo0er of the notice
re<uire'ent in ter'in$tion for :ust or $uthoriEe% c$uses /$s not $ %eni$l of
%ue process th$t /ill nullif0 the ter'in$tion& #o/ever, the %is'iss$l is
ineMectu$l $n% the e'plo0er 'ust p$0 full b$c?/$(es fro' the ti'e of
ter'in$tion until it is :u%ici$ll0 %ecl$re% th$t the %is'iss$l /$s for $ :ust or
$uthoriEe% c$use&

The r$tion$le for the re-e.$'in$tion of the ,enphil %octrine in 'errano
/$s the si(ni7c$nt nu'ber of c$ses involvin( %is'iss$ls /ithout re<uisite
notices& Ce conclu%e% th$t the i'position of pen$lt0 b0 /$0 of %$'$(es for
viol$tion of the notice re<uire'ent /$s not servin( $s $ %eterrent& #ence,
/e no/ re<uire% p$0'ent of full b$c?/$(es fro' the ti'e of %is'iss$l until
the ti'e the "ourt 7n%s the %is'iss$l /$s for $ :ust or $uthoriEe% c$use&

'errano /$s confrontin( the pr$ctice of e'plo0ers to J%is'iss no/ $n%
p$0 l$terK b0 i'posin( full b$c?/$(es&

Ce believe, ho/ever, th$t the rulin( in 'errano %i% not consi%er the full
'e$nin( of Article *-1 of the B$bor "o%e /hich st$tes:

AR;0 6-90 %ec"rit$ o( ;en"re0 I In cases o( re#"lar emplo$ment, the
emplo$er shall not terminate the services o( an emplo$ee e+cept (or a !"st ca"se
or *hen a"thoriFed b$ this ;itle0 An emplo$ee *ho is "n!"stl$ dismissed (rom
*or) shall be entitled to reinstatement *itho"t loss o( seniorit$ ri#hts and other
privile#es and to his ("ll bac)*a#es, incl"sive o( allo*ances, and to his other
bene(its or their monetar$ eE"ivalent comp"ted (rom the time his compensation
*as *ithheld (rom him "p to the time o( his act"al reinstatement0


This 'e$ns th$t the ter'in$tion is ille($l onl0 if it is not for $n0 of the
:usti7e% or $uthoriEe% c$uses provi%e% b0 l$/& P$0'ent of b$c?/$(es $n%
other bene7ts, inclu%in( reinst$te'ent, is :usti7e% onl0 if the e'plo0ee /$s
un:ustl0 %is'isse%&

The f$ct th$t the 'errano rulin( c$n c$use unf$irness $n% in:ustice
/hich elicite% stron( %issent h$s pro'pte% us to revisit the %octrine&

To be sure, the 2ue Process "l$use in Article III, Section + of the
"onstitution e'bo%ies $ s0ste' of ri(hts b$se% on 'or$l principles so
%eepl0 i'be%%e% in the tr$%itions $n% feelin(s of our people $s to be
%ee'e% fun%$'ent$l to $ civiliEe% societ0 $s conceive% b0 our entire
histor0& 2ue process is th$t /hich co'ports /ith the %eepest notions of /h$t
is f$ir $n% ri(ht $n% :ust&
3*64
It is $ constitution$l restr$int on the le(isl$tive $s
/ell $s on the e.ecutive $n% :u%ici$l po/ers of the (overn'ent provi%e% b0
the Gill of Ri(hts&

2ue process un%er the B$bor "o%e, li?e Constitutional due process, h$s
t/o $spects: subst$ntive, i.e., the v$li% $n% $uthoriEe% c$uses of
e'plo0'ent ter'in$tion un%er the B$bor "o%eO $n% proce%ur$l, i.e., the
'$nner of %is'iss$l& Proce%ur$l %ue process re<uire'ents for %is'iss$l $re
foun% in the I'ple'entin( Rules of P&2& 55*, $s $'en%e%, other/ise ?no/n
$s the B$bor "o%e of the Philippines in Goo? FI, Rule I, Sec& *, $s $'en%e% b0
2ep$rt'ent Or%er Nos& 1 $n% +,&
3*-4
Gre$ches of these due process
re<uire'ents viol$te the B$bor "o%e& Therefore statutory due process
shoul% be %iMerenti$te% fro' f$ilure to co'pl0 /ith constitutional due
process&

Constitutional due process protects the in%ivi%u$l fro' the (overn'ent
$n% $ssures hi' of his ri(hts in cri'in$l, civil or $%'inistr$tive procee%in(sO
/hile statutory due process foun% in the B$bor "o%e $n% I'ple'entin( Rules
protects e'plo0ees fro' bein( un:ustl0 ter'in$te% /ithout :ust c$use $fter
notice $n% he$rin(&

In 'ebuguero !. $ational %abor Relations Commission,
3*;4
the %is'iss$l
/$s for $ :ust $n% v$li% c$use but the e'plo0ee /$s not $ccor%e% %ue
process& The %is'iss$l /$s uphel% b0 the "ourt but the e'plo0er /$s
s$nctione%& The s$nction shoul% be in the n$ture of in%e'ni7c$tion or
pen$lt0, $n% %epen%s on the f$cts of e$ch c$se $n% the (r$vit0 of the
o'ission co''itte% b0 the e'plo0er&

In $ath !. $ational %abor Relations Commission,
3*14
it /$s rule% th$t
even if the e'plo0ee /$s not (iven %ue process, the f$ilure %i% not oper$te
to er$%ic$te the :ust c$uses for %is'iss$l& The %is'iss$l bein( for :ust c$use,
albeit /ithout %ue process, %i% not entitle the e'plo0ee to reinst$te'ent,
b$c?/$(es, %$'$(es $n% $ttorne0@s fees&

r& )ustice )ose "& Fitu(, in his sep$r$te opinion in #-- #arine
'er!ices, &nc. !. $ational %abor Relations Commission,
3A,4
/hich opinion he
reiter$te% in 'errano, st$te%:

"& Chere there is :ust c$use for %is'iss$l but %ue
process h$s not been properl0 observe% b0 $n e'plo0er, it /oul%
not be ri(ht to or%er either the reinst$te'ent of the %is'isse%
e'plo0ee or the p$0'ent of b$c?/$(es to hi'& In f$ilin(,
ho/ever, to co'pl0 /ith the proce%ure prescribe% b0 l$/ in
ter'in$tin( the services of the e'plo0ee, the e'plo0er 'ust be
%ee'e% to h$ve opte% or, in $n0 c$se, shoul% be '$%e li$ble, for
the p$0'ent of sep$r$tion p$0& It 'i(ht be pointe% out th$t the
notice to be (iven $n% the he$rin( to be con%ucte% (ener$ll0
constitute the t/o-p$rt %ue process re<uire'ent of l$/ to be
$ccor%e% to the e'plo0ee b0 the e'plo0er& Nevertheless,
peculi$r circu'st$nces 'i(ht obt$in in cert$in situ$tions /here
to un%ert$?e the $bove steps /oul% be no 'ore th$n $ useless
for'$lit0 $n% /here, $ccor%in(l0, it /oul% not be i'pru%ent to
$ppl0 the res ipsa lo"uitur rule $n% $/$r%, in lieu of sep$r$tion
p$0, no'in$l %$'$(es to the e'plo0ee& . . .&
3A+4

After c$refull0 $n$l0Ein( the conse<uences of the %iver(ent %octrines
in the l$/ on e'plo0'ent ter'in$tion, /e believe th$t in c$ses involvin(
%is'iss$ls for c$use but /ithout observ$nce of the t/in re<uire'ents of
notice $n% he$rin(, the better rule is to $b$n%on the 'errano %octrine $n% to
follo/ ,enphil b0 hol%in( th$t the %is'iss$l /$s for :ust c$use but i'posin(
s$nctions on the e'plo0er& Such s$nctions, ho/ever, 'ust be stiMer th$n
th$t i'pose% in ,enphil& G0 %oin( so, this "ourt /oul% be $ble to $chieve $
f$ir result b0 %ispensin( :ustice not :ust to e'plo0ees, but to e'plo0ers $s
/ell&

The unf$irness of %ecl$rin( ille($l or ineMectu$l %is'iss$ls for v$li% or
$uthoriEe% c$uses but not co'pl0in( /ith st$tutor0 %ue process '$0 h$ve
f$r-re$chin( conse<uences&

This /oul% encour$(e frivolous suits, /here even the 'ost notorious
viol$tors of co'p$n0 polic0 $re re/$r%e% b0 invo?in( %ue process& This $lso
cre$tes $bsur% situ$tions /here there is $ :ust or $uthoriEe% c$use for
%is'iss$l but $ proce%ur$l in7r'it0 inv$li%$tes the ter'in$tion& Bet us t$?e
for e.$'ple $ c$se /here the e'plo0ee is c$u(ht ste$lin( or thre$tens the
lives of his co-e'plo0ees or h$s beco'e $ cri'in$l, /ho h$s Pe% $n% c$nnot
be foun%, or /here serious business losses %e'$n% th$t oper$tions be
ce$se% in less th$n $ 'onth& Inv$li%$tin( the %is'iss$l /oul% not serve
public interest& It coul% $lso %iscour$(e invest'ents th$t c$n (ener$te
e'plo0'ent in the loc$l econo'0&

The constitution$l polic0 to provi%e full protection to l$bor is not 'e$nt
to be $ s/or% to oppress e'plo0ers& The co''it'ent of this "ourt to the
c$use of l$bor %oes not prevent us fro' sust$inin( the e'plo0er /hen it is in
the ri(ht, $s in this c$se&
3A*4
"ert$inl0, $n e'plo0er shoul% not be co'pelle%
to p$0 e'plo0ees for /or? not $ctu$ll0 perfor'e% $n% in f$ct $b$n%one%&

The e'plo0er shoul% not be co'pelle% to continue e'plo0in( $ person
/ho is $%'itte%l0 (uilt0 of 'isfe$s$nce or '$lfe$s$nce $n% /hose continue%
e'plo0'ent is p$tentl0 ini'ic$l to the e'plo0er& The l$/ protectin( the
ri(hts of the l$borer $uthoriEes neither oppression nor self-%estruction of the
e'plo0er&
3AA4

It 'ust be stresse% th$t in the present c$se, the petitioners co''itte%
$ (r$ve oMense, i.e., $b$n%on'ent, /hich, if the re<uire'ents of %ue
process /ere co'plie% /ith, /oul% un%oubte%l0 result in $ v$li% %is'iss$l&

An e'plo0ee /ho is cle$rl0 (uilt0 of con%uct viol$tive of Article
*;* shoul% not be protecte% b0 the Soci$l )ustice "l$use of the "onstitution&
Soci$l :ustice, $s the ter' su((ests, shoul% be use% onl0 to correct $n
in:ustice& As the e'inent )ustice )ose P& B$urel observe%, soci$l :ustice 'ust
be foun%e% on the re2o3nition o4 t5e ne2e66it7 o4 inter1epen1en2e
amon3 1i8er6e unit6 o4 a 6o2iet7 an1 o4 t5e prote2tion t5at 65oul1
9e e:uall7 an1 e8enl7 e;ten1e1 to all 3roup6 a6 a 2om9ine1 4or2e in
our 6o2ial an1 e2onomi2 li4e, consistent /ith the fun%$'ent$l $n%
p$r$'ount ob:ective of the st$te of pro'otin( the he$lth, co'fort, $n% <uiet
of $ll persons, $n% of brin(in( $bout Jthe (re$test (oo% to the (re$test
nu'ber&K
3A54


This is no o sa! ha h" Co#$ %as %$on& %h"n i $#'"d h" %a! i did in Wenphil,
Serrano and $"'a"d (as"s. So(ia' )#si(" is no *as"d on $i&id +o$,#'as s" in son". I has
o a''o% +o$ (han&in& i,"s and (i$(#,san("s.

7"stice Isa#ani :r"F stron#l$ asserts the need to appl$ a balanced approach to labor8
mana#ement relations and dispense !"stice *ith an even hand in ever$ case:

We have repeatedl$ stressed that social !"stice I or an$ !"stice (or that
matter I is (or the deservin#, *hether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a
pa"per in his hovel0 It is tr"e that, in case o( reasonable do"bt, *e are to tilt the
balance in (avor o( the poor to *hom the :onstit"tion (ittin#l$ e+tends its
s$mpath$ and compassion0 H"t never is it !"sti(ied to #ive pre(erence to the poor
simpl$ beca"se the$ are poor, or re!ect the rich simpl$ beca"se the$ are rich, (or
!"stice m"st al*a$s be served (or the poor and the rich ali)e, accordin# to the
mandate o( the la*0
B41D

)ustice in ever0 c$se shoul% onl0 be for the %eservin( p$rt0& It shoul%
not be presu'e% th$t ever0 c$se of ille($l %is'iss$l /oul% $uto'$tic$ll0 be
%eci%e% in f$vor of l$bor, $s '$n$(e'ent h$s ri(hts th$t shoul% be full0
respecte% $n% enforce% b0 this "ourt& As inter%epen%ent $n% in%ispens$ble
p$rtners in n$tion-buil%in(, l$bor $n% '$n$(e'ent nee% e$ch other to foster
pro%uctivit0 $n% econo'ic (ro/thO hence, the nee% to /ei(h $n% b$l$nce the
ri(hts $n% /elf$re of both the e'plo0ee $n% e'plo0er&

Chere the %is'iss$l is for $ :ust c$use, $s in the inst$nt c$se, the l$c? of
st$tutor0 %ue process shoul% not nullif0 the %is'iss$l, or ren%er it ille($l,
or ineMectu$l& #o/ever, the e'plo0er shoul% in%e'nif0 the e'plo0ee for
the viol$tion of his st$tutor0 ri(hts, $s rule% in Reta !. $ational %abor
Relations Commission&
3A64
The in%e'nit0 to be i'pose% shoul% be stiMer
to %iscour$(e the $bhorrent pr$ctice of J%is'iss no/, p$0 l$ter,K /hich
/e sou(ht to %eter in the 'errano rulin(& The s$nction shoul% be in the
n$ture of in%e'ni7c$tion or pen$lt0 $n% shoul% %epen% on the f$cts of
e$ch c$se, t$?in( into speci$l consi%er$tion the (r$vit0 of the %ue process
viol$tion of the e'plo0er&

Un%er the "ivil "o%e, no'in$l %$'$(es is $%:u%ic$te% in or%er th$t $
ri(ht of the pl$intiM, /hich h$s been viol$te% or inv$%e% b0 the %efen%$nt,
'$0 be vin%ic$te% or reco(niEe%, $n% not for the purpose of in%e'nif0in(
the pl$intiM for $n0 loss suMere% b0 hi'&
3A-4

As enunci$te% b0 this "ourt in .iernes !. $ational %abor Relations
Commissions,
3A;4
$n e'plo0er is li$ble to p$0 in%e'nit0 in the for' of
no'in$l %$'$(es to $n e'plo0ee /ho h$s been %is'isse% if, in eMectin(
such %is'iss$l, the e'plo0er f$ils to co'pl0 /ith the re<uire'ents of %ue
process& The "ourt, $fter consi%erin( the circu'st$nces therein, 7.e% the
in%e'nit0 $t P*,D1,&D,, /hich /$s e<uiv$lent to the e'plo0ee@s one 'onth
s$l$r0& This in%e'nit0 is inten%e% not to pen$liEe the e'plo0er but to
vin%ic$te or reco(niEe the e'plo0ee@s ri(ht to st$tutor0 %ue process /hich
/$s viol$te% b0 the e'plo0er&
3A14

The viol$tion of the petitioners@ ri(ht to st$tutor0 %ue process b0 the
priv$te respon%ent /$rr$nts the p$0'ent of in%e'nit0 in the for' of
no'in$l %$'$(es& The $'ount of such %$'$(es is $%%resse% to the soun%
%iscretion of the court, t$?in( into $ccount the relev$nt circu'st$nces&
35,4

Con6i1erin3 t5e pre8ailin3 2ir2um6tan2e6 in t5e 2a6e at 9ar, <e
1eem it proper to =; it at P>?,???.??. Ce believe this for' of %$'$(es
/oul% serve to %eter e'plo0ers fro' future viol$tions of the st$tutor0 %ue
process ri(hts of e'plo0ees& At the ver0 le$st, it provi%es $ vin%ic$tion or
reco(nition of this fun%$'ent$l ri(ht (r$nte% to the l$tter un%er the B$bor
"o%e $n% its I'ple'entin( Rules&

Priv$te respon%ent cl$i's th$t the "ourt of Appe$ls erre% in
hol%in( th$t it f$ile% to p$0 petitioners@ holi%$0 p$0, service incentive le$ve
p$0 $n% +A
th
'onth p$0&

Ce $re not persu$%e%&

Ce $Qr' the rulin( of the $ppell$te court on petitioners@ 'one0
cl$i's& Priv$te respon%ent is li$ble for petitioners@ holi%$0 p$0, service
incentive le$ve p$0 $n% +A
th
'onth p$0 /ithout %e%uctions&

As $ (ener$l rule, one /ho ple$%s p$0'ent h$s the bur%en of provin(
it& Even /here the e'plo0ee 'ust $lle(e non-p$0'ent, the (ener$l rule is
th$t the bur%en rests on the e'plo0er to prove p$0'ent, r$ther th$n on the
e'plo0ee to prove non-p$0'ent& The re$son for the rule is th$t the
pertinent personnel 7les, p$0rolls, recor%s, re'itt$nces $n% other si'il$r
%ocu'ents R /hich /ill sho/ th$t overti'e, %iMerenti$ls, service incentive
le$ve $n% other cl$i's of /or?ers h$ve been p$i% R $re not in the possession
of the /or?er but in the custo%0 $n% $bsolute control of the e'plo0er&
35+4


In the c$se $t b$r, if priv$te respon%ent in%ee% p$i% petitioners@
holi%$0 p$0 $n% service incentive le$ve p$0, it coul% h$ve e$sil0 presente%
%ocu'ent$r0 proofs of such 'onet$r0 bene7ts to %isprove the cl$i's of the
petitioners& Gut it %i% not, e.cept /ith respect to the +A
th
'onth p$0 /herein
it presente% c$sh vouchers sho/in( p$0'ents of the bene7t in the 0e$rs
%ispute%&
35*4
Alle($tions b0 priv$te respon%ent th$t it %oes not oper$te
%urin( holi%$0s $n% th$t it $llo/s its e'plo0ees +, %$0s le$ve /ith p$0,
other th$n bein( self-servin(, %o not constitute proof of p$0'ent&
"onse<uentl0, it f$ile% to %isch$r(e the onus probandi thereb0 '$?in( it
li$ble for such cl$i's to the petitioners&

Anent the %e%uction of SSS lo$n $n% the v$lue of the shoes fro'
petitioner Fir(ilio A($bon@s +A
th
'onth p$0, /e 7n% the s$'e to be
un$uthoriEe%& The evi%ent intention of Presi%enti$l 2ecree No& ;D+ is to
(r$nt $n additional income in the for' of the +A
th
'onth p$0 to e'plo0ees
not $lre$%0 receivin( the s$'e
35A4
so $s Jto further protect the le!el of real
wages from the ra!ages of world-wide in/ation.K
3554
"le$rl0, $s $%%ition$l
inco'e, the +A
th
'onth p$0 is inclu%e% in the %e7nition of /$(e un%er Article
1-8f9 of the B$bor "o%e, to /it:

8f9 JC$(eK p$i% to $n0 e'plo0ee sh$ll 'e$n the
re'uner$tion or e$rnin(s, ho/ever %esi(n$te%, c$p$ble of bein(
e.presse% in ter's of 'one0 /hether 7.e% or $scert$ine% on $
ti'e, t$s?, piece , or co''ission b$sis, or other 'etho% of
c$lcul$tin( the s$'e, /hich is p$0$ble b0 $n e'plo0er to $n
e'plo0ee un%er $ /ritten or un/ritten contr$ct of e'plo0'ent
for /or? %one or to be %one, or for services ren%ere% or to be
ren%ere% $n% inclu%es the f$ir $n% re$son$ble v$lue, $s
%eter'ine% b0 the Secret$r0 of B$bor, of bo$r%, lo%(in(, or other
f$cilities custo'$ril0 furnishe% b0 the e'plo0er to the
e'plo0eeSK

fro' /hich $n e'plo0er is prohibite% un%er Article ++A
35D4
of the s$'e "o%e
fro' '$?in( $n0 %e%uctions /ithout the e'plo0ee@s ?no/le%(e $n%
consent& In the inst$nt c$se, priv$te respon%ent f$ile% to sho/ th$t the
%e%uction of the SSS lo$n $n% the v$lue of the shoes fro' petitioner Fir(ilio
A($bon@s +A
th
'onth p$0 /$s $uthoriEe% b0 the l$tter& The l$c? of $uthorit0
to %e%uct is further bolstere% b0 the f$ct th$t petitioner Fir(ilio A($bon
inclu%e% the s$'e $s one of his 'one0 cl$i's $($inst priv$te respon%ent&

The "ourt of Appe$ls properl0 reinst$te% the 'onet$r0 cl$i's $/$r%e%
b0 the B$bor Arbiter or%erin( the priv$te respon%ent to p$0 e$ch of the
petitioners holi%$0 p$0 for four re(ul$r holi%$0s fro' +116 to +11;, in the
$'ount of P6,D*,&,,, service incentive le$ve p$0 for the s$'e perio% in the
$'ount of PA,*DD&,, $n% the b$l$nce of Fir(ilio A($bon@s thirteenth 'onth
p$0 for +11; in the $'ount of P*,+D,&,,&

$HERE&ORE, in vie/ of the fore(oin(, the petition is DENIED& The
%ecision of the "ourt of Appe$ls %$te% )$nu$r0 *A, *,,A, in "A-G&R& SP No&
6A,+-, 7n%in( th$t petitioners@ )enn0 $n% Fir(ilio A($bon $b$n%one% their
/or?, $n% or%erin( priv$te respon%ent to p$0 e$ch of the petitioners holi%$0
p$0 for four re(ul$r holi%$0s fro' +116 to +11;, in the $'ount of P6,D*,&,,,
service incentive le$ve p$0 for the s$'e perio% in the $'ount of PA,*DD&,,
$n% the b$l$nce of Fir(ilio A($bon@s thirteenth 'onth p$0 for +11; in the
$'ount of P*,+D,&,, is A&&IRMED /ith the MODI&ICATION th$t priv$te
respon%ent Rivier$ #o'e I'prove'ents, Inc& is further ORDERED to p$0
e$ch of the petitioners the $'ount of PA,,,,,&,, $s no'in$l %$'$(es for
non-co'pli$nce /ith st$tutor0 %ue process&

No costs&

SO ORDERED.


CONS!ELO "NARES@SANTIAGO
Associ$te )ustice

$E CONC!R:



HILARIO G. DAVIDE, %R.
"hief )ustice



REYNATO S. -.NO ARTEMIO V. -ANGANIBAN
Associ$te )ustice Associ$te )ustice



LEONAR/O A. 0.IS.MBING ANGELINA SAN/OVAL-G.TIERRE1
Associ$te )ustice Associ$te )ustice



ANTONIO T. CAR-IO MA. ALICIA A.STRIA-MARTINE1
Associ$te )ustice Associ$te )ustice








RENATO C. CORONA CONC2ITA CAR-IO-MORALES
Associ$te )ustice Associ$te )ustice



ROMEO %. CALLE%O, SR. ADOL&O S. AC!NA
Associ$te )ustice Associ$te )ustice



DANTE O. TINGA MINITA V. CHICO@NAARIO
Associ$te )ustice Associ$te )ustice



CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associ$te )ustice




CERTIFICATION


Pursu$nt to Section +A, Article FIII of the "onstitution, it is hereb0
certi7e% th$t the conclusions in the $bove 2ecision /ere re$che% in
consult$tion before the c$se /$s $ssi(ne% to the /riter of the opinion of the
"ourt&


HILARIO G. DAVIDE, %R.
"hief )ustice

S-ar putea să vă placă și