231. WENPHIL CORPORATION vs.

ISSUE:
NLRC and ROBERTO MALLARE Whether an employee dismissed for just cause but without due process be
G.R. No. 80587 February 8, 1989 reinstated to work.

DOCTRINES:
Thus in the present case, where the private respondent, who appears to be
of violent temper, caused trouble during office hours and even defied his
superiors as they tried to pacify him, should not be rewarded with re
employment and back wages. It may encourage him to do even worse and
will render a mockery of the rules of discipline that employees are required
to observe. Under the circumstances, the dismissal of the private
respondent for just cause should be maintained. He has no right to return to
his former employment.
However, the petitioner must nevertheless be held to account for failure to
extend to private respondent his right to an investigation before causing his
dismissal. The rule is explicit as above discussed. The dismissal of an
employee must be for just or authorized cause and after due process.
Petitioner committed an infraction of the second requirement. Thus, it must
be imposed a sanction for its failure to give a formal notice and conduct an
investigation as required by law before dismissing petitioner from
employment. Considering the circumstances of this case petitioner must
indemnify the private respondent the amount of P1,000.00. The measure of
this award depends on the facts of each case and the gravity of the omission
committed by the employer.
RULING:
The basic requirement of due proves is that which hears before it
condemns, proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. The
dismissal of an employee must be for a just cause and after due
process. Petitioner committed an infraction of the second requirement thus
it must be imposed a sanction for its failure to give a formal notice and
conduct an investigation as required by law before dismissing Mallare from
employment. Petitioner must indemnify the dismissed employee which
depends on the facts of each case and the gravity of the omission
committed by the employer.
Where the private respondent appears to be of violent temper, caused
trouble during office hours and even defied his supervisors as they tried to
pacify him, he should not be rewarded with re-employment and
backwages. The dismissal of the respondent should be maintained.

FACTS:
Private respondent Mallare had an altercation with a co-employee. The
following day, the Operations Manager served them memorandum of
suspension and in the afternoon of that same day, Mallare was dismissed
from work.

Labor Arbiter dismissed Mallare’s petition for unfair labor practice for lack
of merit.

NLRC reversed the decision and ordered the reinstatement of Mallare with
full backwages of one year without qualification and deduction.

232. RUBEN SERRANO vs. NLRC and ISETANN DEPARTMENT STORE
G.R. No. 117040. January 27, 2000
DOCTRINES:
Termination of petitioner’s services was for an authorized cause, i.e.,
redundancy.—That the phase-out of the security section constituted a
“legitimate business decision”—is a factual finding of an administrative
agency which must be accorded respect and even finality by this Court since
nothing can be found in the record which fairly detracts from such findingy.
Hence, pursuant to Art. 283 of the Labor Code, petitioner should be given
separation pay at the rate of one month pay for every year of service.
It is now settled that where the dismissal of one employee is in fact for a
just and valid cause and is so proven to be but he is not accorded his right to
due process x x x the dismissal shall be upheld but the employer must be
sanctioned for non-compliance with the requirements of or for failure to
observe, due process.
The rule reversed a long standing policy theretofore followed that even
though the dismissal is based on a just cause or the termination of
employment is for an authorized cause, the dismissal or termination is
illegal if effected without notice to the employee. The shift in doctrine took
place in 1989 in Wenphil Corp. v. NLRC. In announcing the change, this
Court said: x x x However, the petitioner must nevertheless be held to
account for failure to extend to private respondent his right to an
investigation before causing his dismissal.
FACTS:
Serrano was a regular employee of Isetann Department Store as the head of
Security Checker. In 1991, as a cost-cutting measure, Isetann phased out its
entire security section and engaged the services of an independent security
agency. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal among others.
Labor arbiter ruled in his favor as Isetann failed to establish that it had
retrenched its security section to prevent or minimize losses to its business;
that private respondent failed to accord due process to petitioner; that
private respondent failed to use reasonable standards in selecting
employees whose employment would be terminated.
NLRC reversed the decision and ordered petitioner to be given separation
pay.
ISSUE:
Whether the hiring of an independent security agency by the private
respondent to replace its current security section a valid ground for the
dismissal of the employees classed under the latter.
RULING:
An employer’s good faith in implementing a redundancy program is not
necessarily put in doubt by the availment of the services of an independent
contractor to replace the services of the terminated employees to promote
economy and efficiency. Absent proof that management acted in a
malicious or arbitrary manner, the Court will not interfere with the exercise
of judgment by an employer.
If termination of employment is not for any of the cause provided by law, it
is illegal and the employee should be reinstated and paid backwages. To
contend that even if the termination is for a just cause, the employee
concerned should be reinstated and paid backwages would be to amend Art
279 by adding another ground for considering dismissal illegal.
If it is shown that the employee was dismissed for any of the causes
mentioned in Art 282, the in accordance with that article, he should not be
reinstated but must be paid backwages from the time his employment was
terminated until it is determined that the termination of employment is for
a just cause because the failure to hear him before he is dismissed renders
the termination without legal effect.
233. AGABON VS NLRC and RIVIERA HOME
G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004
DOCTRINES:
Dismissals based on just causes contemplate acts or omissions attributable
to the employee while dismissals based on authorized causes involve
grounds under the Labor Code which allow the employer to terminate
employees. A termination for an authorized cause requires payment of
separation pay. When the termination of employment is declared illegal,
reinstatement and full backwages are mandated under Article 279. If
reinstatement is no longer possible where the dismissal was unjust,
separation pay may be granted.
The rationale for the re-examination of the Wenphil doctrine in Serrano
was the significant number of cases involving dismissals without requisite
notices. We concluded that the imposition of penalty by way of damages for
violation of the notice requirement was not serving as a deterrent. Hence,
we now required payment of full backwages from the time of dismissal until
the time the Court finds the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause.
Serrano was confronting the practice of employers to “dismiss now and pay
later” by imposing full backwages. We believe, however, that the ruling in
Serrano did not consider the full meaning of Article 279 of the Labor Code
which states: ART. 279. Security of Tenure.—In cases of regular employment,
the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a
just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly
dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of
allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed
from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his
actual reinstatement. This means that the termination is illegal only if it is
not for any of the justified or authorized causes provided by law. Payment
of backwages and other benefits, including reinstate ment, is justified only if
the employee was unjustly dismissed. The fact that the Serrano ruling can
cause unfairness and injustice which elicited strong dissent has prompted us
to revisit the doctrine.
After carefully analyzing the consequences of the divergent doctrines in the
law on employment termination, we believe that in cases involving
dismissals for cause but without observance of the twin requirements of
notice and hearing, the better rule is to abandon the Serrano doctrine and
to follow Wenphil by holding that the dismissal was for just cause but
imposing sanctions on the employer. Such sanctions, however, must be
stiffer than that imposed in Wenphil. By doing so, this Court would be able
to achieve a fair result by dispensing justice not just to employees, but to
employers as well.
The violation of the petitioners’ right to statutory due process by the
private respondent warrants the payment of indemnity in the form of
NOMINAL DAMAGES. The amount of such damages is addressed to the
sound discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant
circumstances. Considering the prevailing circumstances in the case at bar,
we deem it proper to fix it at P30,000.00.
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 petitioner’s 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 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
DAMAGRS.