Agabon vs. NLRC / Riviera Home - GR No.

158693 Case Digest

FACTS:
Petitioners were employed by Riviera Home as gypsum board and cornice installers
from January 1992 to February 23, 1999 when they were dismissed for
abandonment of work. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and was
decided in their favor by the Labor Arbiter. Riviera appealed to the NLRC contending
just cause for the dismissal because of petitioners abandonment of work. NLRC
ruled there was just cause and petitioners were not entitled to backwages and
separation pay. The CA in turn ruled that the dismissal was not illegal because they
have abandoned their work but ordered the payment of money claims.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed.
RULING:
To dismiss an employee, the law required not only the existence of a just and valid
cause but also enjoins the employer to give the employee the right to be heard and
to defend himself. Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an
employee to resume his employment. For a valid finding or abandonment, two
factors are considered: failure to report for work without a valid reason; and, a clear
intention to sever employer-employee relationship with the second as the more
determinative factor which is manifested by overt acts from which it may be
deduced that the employees has no more intention to work.
Where the employer had a valid reason to dismiss an employee but did not follow
the due process requirement, the dismissal may be upheld but the employer will be
penalized to pay an indemnity to the employee. This became known as the Wenphil
Doctrine of the Belated Due process Rule.
Art. 279 means that the termination is illegal if it is not for any of the justifiable or
authorized by law. Where the dismissal is for a just cause, the lack of statutory due
process should not nullify the dismissal but the employer should indemnify the
employee for the violation of his statutory rights. The indemnity should be stiffer to
discourage the abhorrent practice of dismiss now, pay later which we sought to
deter in Serrano ruling. The violation of employees rights warrants the payment of
nominal damages.