Home
Non-compliance with due process requirements
Before the Agabon case, the doctrine in Serrano v.NLRC (GR No. 117040, 27 January 2000) was
followed. It states that termination due to authorized cause without giving the notice required under the Labor Code is not a violation of due process. It is valid although declared irregular / ineffectual. He shall however be entitled to SEPARATION PAY AND BACKWAGES.
Agabon v. NLRC, 17 November 2004 modifies Serrano
Dismissal for an authorized or just cause, w/o procedural due process is not an illegal dismissal
which warrants backwages; employee entitled only to nominal damages. The Court interpreted Art. 279 to the effect that 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 reinstatement, is justified only if the employee was unjustly dismissed. The Court decided to follow Wenphil that where the dismissal is for a just cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal or render it illegal. However, the employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his rights. The indemnity should be stiffer than that provided in Wenphil to discourage the abhorrent practice of “dismiss now, pay later.” The indemnity should be in the form of nominal damages, which is adjudicated in order that a right of plaintiff, which has been violated by the defendant, may be vindicated.
Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot, 28 March 2005 If the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282 but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction to be imposed upon him should be tempered because the dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act imputable to the employee. On the other hand, if the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Article 283 but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiffer because the dismissal process was initiated by the employer’s
Agabon not given retroactive effect
The principle in law giving retroactive effect where the subsequent law is corrective in character does not necessarily apply to judicial decisions. Unless the SC provides otherwise, the ruling would have no retroactive effect.
