Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 158693 November 17, 2004
JENN M. !G!"ON #$% &'RG'('O C. !G!"ON, petitioners,
vs.
N!T'ON!( (!"OR RE(!T'ONS COMM'SS'ON )N(RC*, R'&'ER! +OME
'MPRO&EMENTS, 'NC. #$% &'CENTE !NGE(ES, respondents.
,EC'S'ON
N!RES-S!NT'!GO, J..
This petition for review seeks to reverse the decision

of the Court of Appeals dated

!anuar" #$, #%%$, in CA&'.R. (P No. )$%*, +odif"in, the decision of National -abor
Relations Co++ission .N-RC/ in N-RC&NCR Case No. %#$00#&%%.
Private respondent Riviera 1o+e 2+prove+ents, 2nc. is en,a,ed in the business of
sellin, and installin, orna+ental and construction +aterials. 2t e+plo"ed petitioners
3ir,ilio A,abon and !enn" A,abon as ,"psu+ board and cornice installers on !anuar"
#, 44#
#
until 5ebruar" #$, 444 when the" were dis+issed for abandon+ent of work.
Petitioners then filed a co+plaint for ille,al dis+issal and pa"+ent of +one" clai+s
$
and
on 6ece+ber #7, 444, the -abor Arbiter rendered a decision declarin, the dis+issals
ille,al and ordered private respondent to pa" the +onetar" clai+s. The dispositive
portion of the decision states8
91ERE5:RE, pre+ises considered, 9e find the ter+ination of the
co+plainants ille,al. Accordin,l", respondent is hereb" ordered to pa" the+
their backwa,es up to Nove+ber #4, 444 in the su+ of8
. !enn" M. A,abon & P;), #$.4$
#. 3ir,ilio C. A,abon & ;), #$.4$
and, in lieu of reinstate+ent to pa" the+ their separation pa" of one ./ +onth
for ever" "ear of service fro+ date of hirin, up to Nove+ber #4, 444.
Respondent is further ordered to pa" the co+plainants their holida" pa" and
service incentive leave pa" for the "ears 44), 44* and 447 as well as their
pre+iu+ pa" for holida"s and rest da"s and 3ir,ilio A,abon<s $th +onth pa"
differential a+ountin, to T9: T1:=(AN6 :NE 1=N6RE6 525T>
.P#,;%.%%/ Pesos, or the a,,re,ate a+ount of :NE 1=N6RE6 T9ENT>
:NE T1:=(AN6 (2? 1=N6RE6 (E3ENT> E2'1T @ 4$A%% .P#,)*7.4$/
Pesos for !enn" A,abon, and :NE 1=N6RE6 T9ENT> T1REE T1:=(AN6
E2'1T 1=N6RE6 T9ENT> E2'1T @ 4$A%% .P#$,7#7.4$/ Pesos for 3ir,ilio
A,abon, as per attached co+putation of !ulieta C. Nicolas, :2C, Research and
Co+putation =nit, NCR.
(: :R6ERE6.
0
:n appeal, the N-RC reversed the -abor Arbiter because it found that the petitioners
had abandoned their work, and were not entitled to backwa,es and separation pa". The
other +one" clai+s awarded b" the -abor Arbiter were also denied for lack of
evidence.
;
=pon denial of their +otion for reconsideration, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari
with the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals in turn ruled that the dis+issal of the petitioners was not ille,al
because the" had abandoned their e+plo"+ent but ordered the pa"+ent of +one"
clai+s. The dispositive portion of the decision reads8
91ERE5:RE, the decision of the National -abor Relations Co++ission is
RE3ER(E6 onl" insofar as it dis+issed petitioner<s +one" clai+s. Private
respondents are ordered to pa" petitioners holida" pa" for four .0/ re,ular
holida"s in 44), 44*, and 447, as well as their service incentive leave pa"
for said "ears, and to pa" the balance of petitioner 3ir,ilio A,abon<s $th
+onth pa" for 447 in the a+ount of P#,;%.%%.
(: :R6ERE6.
)
1ence, this petition for review on the sole issue of whether petitioners were ille,all"
dis+issed.
*
1
Petitioners assert that the" were dis+issed because the private respondent refused to
,ive the+ assi,n+ents unless the" a,reed to work on a "pakyaw" basis when the"
reported for dut" on 5ebruar" #$, 444. The" did not a,ree on this arran,e+ent
because it would +ean losin, benefits as (ocial (ecurit" ("ste+ .(((/ +e+bers.
Petitioners also clai+ that private respondent did not co+pl" with the twin reBuire+ents
of notice and hearin,.
7
Private respondent, on the other hand, +aintained that petitioners were not dis+issed
but had abandoned their work.
4
2n fact, private respondent sent two letters to the last
known addresses of the petitioners advisin, the+ to report for work. Private
respondent<s +ana,er even talked to petitioner 3ir,ilio A,abon b" telephone so+eti+e
in !une 444 to tell hi+ about the new assi,n+ent at Pacific PlaCa Towers involvin,
0%,%%% sBuare +eters of cornice installation work. 1owever, petitioners did not report for
work because the" had subcontracted to perfor+ installation work for another co+pan".
Petitioners also de+anded for an increase in their wa,e to P#7%.%% per da". 9hen this
was not ,ranted, petitioners stopped reportin, for work and filed the ille,al dis+issal
case.
%
2t is well&settled that findin,s of fact of Buasi&Dudicial a,encies like the N-RC are
accorded not onl" respect but even finalit" if the findin,s are supported b" substantial
evidence. This is especiall" so when such findin,s were affir+ed b" the Court of
Appeals.

1owever, if the factual findin,s of the N-RC and the -abor Arbiter are
conflictin,, as in this case, the reviewin, court +a" delve into the records and eEa+ine
for itself the Buestioned findin,s.
#
Accordin,l", the Court of Appeals, after a careful review of the facts, ruled that
petitioners< dis+issal was for a Dust cause. The" had abandoned their e+plo"+ent and
were alread" workin, for another e+plo"er.
To dis+iss an e+plo"ee, the law reBuires not onl" the eEistence of a Dust and valid
cause but also enDoins the e+plo"er to ,ive the e+plo"ee the opportunit" to be heard
and to defend hi+self.
$
Article #7# of the -abor Code enu+erates the Dust causes for
ter+ination b" the e+plo"er8 .a/ serious +isconduct or willful disobedience b" the
e+plo"ee of the lawful orders of his e+plo"er or the latter<s representative in connection
with the e+plo"ee<s workF .b/ ,ross and habitual ne,lect b" the e+plo"ee of his dutiesF
.c/ fraud or willful breach b" the e+plo"ee of the trust reposed in hi+ b" his e+plo"er or
his dul" authoriCed representativeF .d/ co++ission of a cri+e or offense b" the
e+plo"ee a,ainst the person of his e+plo"er or an" i++ediate +e+ber of his fa+il" or
his dul" authoriCed representativeF and .e/ other causes analo,ous to the fore,oin,.
Abandon+ent is the deliberate and unDustified refusal of an e+plo"ee to resu+e his
e+plo"+ent.
0
2t is a for+ of ne,lect of dut", hence, a Dust cause for ter+ination of
e+plo"+ent b" the e+plo"er.
;
5or a valid findin, of abandon+ent, these two factors
should be present8 ./ the failure to report for work or absence without valid or Dustifiable
reasonF and .#/ a clear intention to sever e+plo"er&e+plo"ee relationship, with the
second as the +ore deter+inative factor which is +anifested b" overt acts fro+ which it
+a" be deduced that the e+plo"ees has no +ore intention to work. The intent to
discontinue the e+plo"+ent +ust be shown b" clear proof that it was deliberate and
unDustified.
)
2n 5ebruar" 444, petitioners were freBuentl" absent havin, subcontracted for an
installation work for another co+pan". (ubcontractin, for another co+pan" clearl"
showed the intention to sever the e+plo"er&e+plo"ee relationship with private
respondent. This was not the first ti+e the" did this. 2n !anuar" 44), the" did not report
for work because the" were workin, for another co+pan". Private respondent at that
ti+e warned petitioners that the" would be dis+issed if this happened a,ain. Petitioners
disre,arded the warnin, and eEhibited a clear intention to sever their e+plo"er&
e+plo"ee relationship. The record of an e+plo"ee is a relevant consideration in
deter+inin, the penalt" that should be +eted out to hi+.
*
2n Sandoval Shipyard v. Clave,
7
we held that an e+plo"ee who deliberatel" absented
fro+ work without leave or per+ission fro+ his e+plo"er, for the purpose of lookin, for
a Dob elsewhere, is considered to have abandoned his Dob. 9e should appl" that rule
with +ore reason here where petitioners were absent because the" were alread"
workin, in another co+pan".
The law i+poses +an" obli,ations on the e+plo"er such as providin, Dust
co+pensation to workers, observance of the procedural reBuire+ents of notice and
hearin, in the ter+ination of e+plo"+ent. :n the other hand, the law also reco,niCes
the ri,ht of the e+plo"er to eEpect fro+ its workers not onl" ,ood perfor+ance,
adeBuate work and dili,ence, but also ,ood conduct
4
and lo"alt". The e+plo"er +a"
not be co+pelled to continue to e+plo" such persons whose continuance in the service
will patentl" be ini+ical to his interests.
#%
After establishin, that the ter+inations were for a Dust and valid cause, we now
deter+ine if the procedures for dis+issal were observed.
The procedure for ter+inatin, an e+plo"ee is found in Book 32, Rule 2, (ection #.d/ of
the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code8
Standards of due process re!uirements of notice. G 2n all cases of ter+ination
of e+plo"+ent, the followin, standards of due process shall be substantiall"
observed8
2
2. 5or ter+ination of e+plo"+ent based on Dust causes as defined in Article #7#
of the Code8
.a/ A written notice served on the e+plo"ee specif"in, the ,round or ,rounds
for ter+ination, and ,ivin, to said e+plo"ee reasonable opportunit" within
which to eEplain his sideF
.b/ A hearin, or conference durin, which the e+plo"ee concerned, with the
assistance of counsel if the e+plo"ee so desires, is ,iven opportunit" to
respond to the char,e, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented
a,ainst hi+F and
.c/ A written notice of ter+ination served on the e+plo"ee indicatin, that upon
due consideration of all the circu+stances, ,rounds have been established to
Dustif" his ter+ination.
2n case of ter+ination, the fore,oin, notices shall be served on the e+plo"ee<s
last known address.
6is+issals based on Dust causes conte+plate acts or o+issions attributable to the
e+plo"ee while dis+issals based on authoriCed causes involve ,rounds under the
-abor Code which allow the e+plo"er to ter+inate e+plo"ees. A ter+ination for an
authoriCed cause reBuires pa"+ent of separation pa". 9hen the ter+ination of
e+plo"+ent is declared ille,al, reinstate+ent and full backwa,es are +andated under
Article #*4. 2f reinstate+ent is no lon,er possible where the dis+issal was unDust,
separation pa" +a" be ,ranted.
Procedurall", ./ if the dis+issal is based on a Dust cause under Article #7#, the
e+plo"er +ust ,ive the e+plo"ee two written notices and a hearin, or opportunit" to be
heard if reBuested b" the e+plo"ee before ter+inatin, the e+plo"+ent8 a notice
specif"in, the ,rounds for which dis+issal is sou,ht a hearin, or an opportunit" to be
heard and after hearin, or opportunit" to be heard, a notice of the decision to dis+issF
and .#/ if the dis+issal is based on authoriCed causes under Articles #7$ and #70, the
e+plo"er +ust ,ive the e+plo"ee and the 6epart+ent of -abor and E+plo"+ent
written notices $% da"s prior to the effectivit" of his separation.
5ro+ the fore,oin, rules four possible situations +a" be derived8 ./ the dis+issal is for
a Dust cause under Article #7# of the -abor Code, for an authoriCed cause under Article
#7$, or for health reasons under Article #70, and due process was observedF .#/ the
dis+issal is without Dust or authoriCed cause but due process was observedF .$/ the
dis+issal is without Dust or authoriCed cause and there was no due processF and .0/ the
dis+issal is for Dust or authoriCed cause but due process was not observed.
2n the first situation, the dis+issal is undoubtedl" valid and the e+plo"er will not suffer
an" liabilit".
2n the second and third situations where the dis+issals are ille,al, Article #*4 +andates
that the e+plo"ee is entitled to reinstate+ent without loss of seniorit" ri,hts and other
privile,es and full backwa,es, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their
+onetar" eBuivalent co+puted fro+ the ti+e the co+pensation was not paid up to the
ti+e of actual reinstate+ent.
2n the fourth situation, the dis+issal should be upheld. 9hile the procedural infir+it"
cannot be cured, it should not invalidate the dis+issal. 1owever, the e+plo"er should
be held liable for non"compliance with the procedural re!uirements of due process.
The present case sBuarel" falls under the fourth situation. The dis+issal should be
upheld because it was established that the petitioners abandoned their Dobs to work for
another co+pan". Private respondent, however, did not follow the notice reBuire+ents
and instead ar,ued that sendin, notices to the last known addresses would have been
useless because the" did not reside there an"+ore. =nfortunatel" for the private
respondent, this is not a valid eEcuse because the law +andates the twin notice
reBuire+ents to the e+plo"ee<s last known address.
#
Thus, it should be held liable for
non"compliance with the procedural re!uirements of due process.
A review and re&eEa+ination of the relevant le,al principles is appropriate and ti+el" to
clarif" the various rulin,s on e+plo"+ent ter+ination in the li,ht of Serrano v. #ational
Labor Relations Commission.
##
Prior to 474, the rule was that a dis+issal or ter+ination is ille,al if the e+plo"ee was
not ,iven an" notice. 2n the 474 case of $enphil Corp. v. #ational Labor Relations
Commission,
#$
we reversed this lon,&standin, rule and held that the dis+issed
e+plo"ee, althou,h not ,iven an" notice and hearin,, was not entitled to reinstate+ent
and backwa,es because the dis+issal was for ,rave +isconduct and insubordination, a
Dust ,round for ter+ination under Article #7#. The e+plo"ee had a violent te+per and
caused trouble durin, office hours, def"in, superiors who tried to pacif" hi+. 9e
concluded that reinstatin, the e+plo"ee and awardin, backwa,es H+a" encoura,e hi+
to do even worse and will render a +ocker" of the rules of discipline that e+plo"ees are
reBuired to observe.H
#0
9e further held that8
=nder the circu+stances, the dis+issal of the private respondent for Dust cause
should be +aintained. 1e has no ri,ht to return to his for+er e+plo"+ent.
1owever, the petitioner +ust nevertheless be held to account for failure to
eEtend to private respondent his ri,ht to an investi,ation before causin, his
3
dis+issal. The rule is eEplicit as above discussed. The dis+issal of an
e+plo"ee +ust be for %ust or authori&ed cause and after due process.
Petitioner co++itted an infraction of the second reBuire+ent. Thus, it +ust be
i+posed a sanction for its failure to ,ive a for+al notice and conduct an
investi,ation as reBuired b" law before dis+issin, petitioner fro+ e+plo"+ent.
Considerin, the circu+stances of this case petitioner +ust inde+nif" the
private respondent the a+ount of P,%%%.%%. The +easure of this award
depends on the facts of each case and the ,ravit" of the o+ission co++itted
b" the e+plo"er.
#;
The rule thus evolved8 where the e+plo"er had a valid reason to dis+iss an e+plo"ee
but did not follow the due process reBuire+ent, the dis+issal +a" be upheld but the
e+plo"er will be penaliCed to pa" an inde+nit" to the e+plo"ee. This beca+e known as
the $enphil or Belated 6ue Process Rule.
:n !anuar" #*, #%%%, in Serrano, the rule on the eEtent of the sanction was chan,ed.
9e held that the violation b" the e+plo"er of the notice reBuire+ent in ter+ination for
Dust or authoriCed causes was not a denial of due process that will nullif" the
ter+ination. 1owever, the dis+issal is ineffectual and the e+plo"er +ust pa" full
backwa,es fro+ the ti+e of ter+ination until it is Dudiciall" declared that the dis+issal
was for a Dust or authoriCed cause.
The rationale for the re&eEa+ination of the $enphil doctrine in Serrano was the
si,nificant nu+ber of cases involvin, dis+issals without reBuisite notices. 9e
concluded that the i+position of penalt" b" wa" of da+a,es for violation of the notice
reBuire+ent was not servin, as a deterrent. 1ence, we now reBuired pa"+ent of full
backwa,es fro+ the ti+e of dis+issal until the ti+e the Court finds the dis+issal was for
a Dust or authoriCed cause.
Serrano was confrontin, the practice of e+plo"ers to Hdis+iss now and pa" laterH b"
i+posin, full backwa,es.
9e believe, however, that the rulin, in Serrano did not consider the full +eanin, of
Article #*4 of the -abor Code which states8
ART. #*4. (ecurit" of Tenure. G 2n cases of re,ular e+plo"+ent, the e+plo"er
shall not ter+inate the services of an e+plo"ee eEcept for a Dust cause or
when authoriCed b" this Title. An e+plo"ee who is unDustl" dis+issed fro+
work shall be entitled to reinstate+ent without loss of seniorit" ri,hts and other
privile,es and to his full backwa,es, inclusive of allowances, and to his other
benefits or their +onetar" eBuivalent co+puted fro+ the ti+e his
co+pensation was withheld fro+ hi+ up to the ti+e of his actual reinstate+ent.
This +eans that the ter+ination is ille,al onl" if it is not for an" of the Dustified or
authoriCed causes provided b" law. Pa"+ent of backwa,es and other benefits, includin,
reinstate+ent, is Dustified onl" if the e+plo"ee was unDustl" dis+issed.
The fact that the Serrano rulin, can cause unfairness and inDustice which elicited stron,
dissent has pro+pted us to revisit the doctrine.
To be sure, the 6ue Process Clause in Article 222, (ection of the Constitution e+bodies
a s"ste+ of ri,hts based on +oral principles so deepl" i+bedded in the traditions and
feelin,s of our people as to be dee+ed funda+ental to a civiliCed societ" as conceived
b" our entire histor". 6ue process is that which co+ports with the deepest notions of
what is fair and ri,ht and Dust.
#)
2t is a constitutional restraint on the le,islative as well as
on the eEecutive and Dudicial powers of the ,overn+ent provided b" the Bill of Ri,hts.
6ue process under the -abor Code, like Constitutional due process, has two aspects8
substantive, i.e., the valid and authoriCed causes of e+plo"+ent ter+ination under the
-abor CodeF and procedural, i.e., the +anner of dis+issal. Procedural due process
reBuire+ents for dis+issal are found in the 2+ple+entin, Rules of P.6. 00#, as
a+ended, otherwise known as the -abor Code of the Philippines in Book 32, Rule 2,
(ec. #, as a+ended b" 6epart+ent :rder Nos. 4 and %.
#*
Breaches of these due
process reBuire+ents violate the -abor Code. Therefore statutory due process should
be differentiated fro+ failure to co+pl" with constitutional due process.
Constitutional due process protects the individual fro+ the ,overn+ent and assures hi+
of his ri,hts in cri+inal, civil or ad+inistrative proceedin,sF while statutory due process
found in the -abor Code and 2+ple+entin, Rules protects e+plo"ees fro+ bein,
unDustl" ter+inated without Dust cause after notice and hearin,.
2n Sebuguero v. #ational Labor Relations Commission,
#7
the dis+issal was for a Dust
and valid cause but the e+plo"ee was not accorded due process. The dis+issal was
upheld b" the Court but the e+plo"er was sanctioned. The sanction should be in the
nature of inde+nification or penalt", and depends on the facts of each case and the
,ravit" of the o+ission co++itted b" the e+plo"er.
2n #ath v. #ational Labor Relations Commission,
#4
it was ruled that even if the e+plo"ee
was not ,iven due process, the failure did not operate to eradicate the Dust causes for
dis+issal. The dis+issal bein, for Dust cause, albeit without due process, did not entitle
the e+plo"ee to reinstate+ent, backwa,es, da+a,es and attorne"<s fees.
Mr. !ustice !ose C. 3itu,, in his separate opinion in '(( 'arine Services) Inc. v.
#ational Labor Relations Commission,
$%
which opinion he reiterated in Serrano, stated8
4
C. 9here there is Dust cause for dis+issal but due process has not been
properl" observed b" an e+plo"er, it would not be ri,ht to order either the
reinstate+ent of the dis+issed e+plo"ee or the pa"+ent of backwa,es to hi+.
2n failin,, however, to co+pl" with the procedure prescribed b" law in
ter+inatin, the services of the e+plo"ee, the e+plo"er +ust be dee+ed to
have opted or, in an" case, should be +ade liable, for the pa"+ent of
separation pa". 2t +i,ht be pointed out that the notice to be ,iven and the
hearin, to be conducted ,enerall" constitute the two&part due process
reBuire+ent of law to be accorded to the e+plo"ee b" the e+plo"er.
Nevertheless, peculiar circu+stances +i,ht obtain in certain situations where
to undertake the above steps would be no +ore than a useless for+alit" and
where, accordin,l", it would not be i+prudent to appl" the res ipsa lo!uitur rule
and award, in lieu of separation pa", no+inal da+a,es to the e+plo"ee. E E
E.
$
After carefull" anal"Cin, the conseBuences of the diver,ent doctrines in the law on
e+plo"+ent ter+ination, we believe that in cases involvin, dis+issals for cause but
without observance of the twin reBuire+ents of notice and hearin,, the better rule is to
abandon the (errano doctrine and to follow $enphil b" holdin, that the dis+issal was
for Dust cause but i+posin, sanctions on the e+plo"er. (uch sanctions, however, +ust
be stiffer than that i+posed in $enphil. B" doin, so, this Court would be able to achieve
a fair result b" dispensin, Dustice not Dust to e+plo"ees, but to e+plo"ers as well.
The unfairness of declarin, ille,al or ineffectual dis+issals for valid or authoriCed
causes but not co+pl"in, with statutor" due process +a" have far&reachin,
conseBuences.
This would encoura,e frivolous suits, where even the +ost notorious violators of
co+pan" polic" are rewarded b" invokin, due process. This also creates absurd
situations where there is a Dust or authoriCed cause for dis+issal but a procedural
infir+it" invalidates the ter+ination. -et us take for eEa+ple a case where the e+plo"ee
is cau,ht stealin, or threatens the lives of his co&e+plo"ees or has beco+e a cri+inal,
who has fled and cannot be found, or where serious business losses de+and that
operations be ceased in less than a +onth. 2nvalidatin, the dis+issal would not serve
public interest. 2t could also discoura,e invest+ents that can ,enerate e+plo"+ent in
the local econo+".
The constitutional polic" to provide full protection to labor is not +eant to be a sword to
oppress e+plo"ers. The co++it+ent of this Court to the cause of labor does not
prevent us fro+ sustainin, the e+plo"er when it is in the ri,ht, as in this case.
$#

Certainl", an e+plo"er should not be co+pelled to pa" e+plo"ees for work not actuall"
perfor+ed and in fact abandoned.
The e+plo"er should not be co+pelled to continue e+plo"in, a person who is
ad+ittedl" ,uilt" of +isfeasance or +alfeasance and whose continued e+plo"+ent is
patentl" ini+ical to the e+plo"er. The law protectin, the ri,hts of the laborer authoriCes
neither oppression nor self&destruction of the e+plo"er.
$$
2t +ust be stressed that in the present case, the petitioners co++itted a ,rave offense,
i.e., abandon+ent, which, if the reBuire+ents of due process were co+plied with, would
undoubtedl" result in a valid dis+issal.
An e+plo"ee who is clearl" ,uilt" of conduct violative of Article #7# should not be
protected b" the (ocial !ustice Clause of the Constitution. (ocial Dustice, as the ter+
su,,ests, should be used onl" to correct an inDustice. As the e+inent !ustice !ose P.
-aurel observed, social Dustice +ust be founded on the reco,nition of the necessit" of
interdependence a+on, diverse units of a societ" and of the protection that should be
eBuall" and evenl" eEtended to all ,roups as a co+bined force in our social and
econo+ic life, consistent with the funda+ental and para+ount obDective of the state of
pro+otin, the health, co+fort, and Buiet of all persons, and of brin,in, about Hthe
,reatest ,ood to the ,reatest nu+ber.H
$0
This is not to sa" that the Court was wron, when it ruled the wa" it did in $enphil,
Serrano and related cases. (ocial Dustice is not based on ri,id for+ulas set in stone. 2t
has to allow for chan,in, ti+es and circu+stances.
!ustice 2sa,ani CruC stron,l" asserts the need to appl" a balanced approach to labor&
+ana,e+ent relations and dispense Dustice with an even hand in ever" case8
9e have repeatedl" stressed that social Dustice G or an" Dustice for that +atter
G is for the deservin,, whether he be a +illionaire in his +ansion or a pauper in
his hovel. 2t is true that, in case of reasonable doubt, we are to tilt the balance
in favor of the poor to who+ the Constitution fittin,l" eEtends its s"+path" and
co+passion. But never is it Dustified to ,ive preference to the poor si+pl"
because the" are poor, or reDect the rich si+pl" because the" are rich, for
Dustice +ust alwa"s be served for the poor and the rich alike, accordin, to the
+andate of the law.
$;
!ustice in ever" case should onl" be for the deservin, part". 2t should not be presu+ed
that ever" case of ille,al dis+issal would auto+aticall" be decided in favor of labor, as
+ana,e+ent has ri,hts that should be full" respected and enforced b" this Court. As
interdependent and indispensable partners in nation&buildin,, labor and +ana,e+ent
need each other to foster productivit" and econo+ic ,rowthF hence, the need to wei,h
and balance the ri,hts and welfare of both the e+plo"ee and e+plo"er.
5
9here the dis+issal is for a Dust cause, as in the instant case, the lack of statutor" due
process should not nullif" the dis+issal, or render it ille,al, or ineffectual. 1owever, the
e+plo"er should inde+nif" the e+plo"ee for the violation of his statutor" ri,hts, as ruled
in Reta v. #ational Labor Relations Commission.
$)
The inde+nit" to be i+posed should
be stiffer to discoura,e the abhorrent practice of Hdis+iss now, pa" later,H which we
sou,ht to deter in the Serrano rulin,. The sanction should be in the nature of
inde+nification or penalt" and should depend on the facts of each case, takin, into
special consideration the ,ravit" of the due process violation of the e+plo"er.
=nder the Civil Code, no+inal da+a,es is adDudicated in order that a ri,ht of the
plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded b" the defendant, +a" be vindicated or
reco,niCed, and not for the purpose of inde+nif"in, the plaintiff for an" loss suffered b"
hi+.
$*
As enunciated b" this Court in *iernes v. #ational Labor Relations Commissions,
$7
an
e+plo"er is liable to pa" inde+nit" in the for+ of no+inal da+a,es to an e+plo"ee who
has been dis+issed if, in effectin, such dis+issal, the e+plo"er fails to co+pl" with the
reBuire+ents of due process. The Court, after considerin, the circu+stances therein,
fiEed the inde+nit" at P#,;4%.;%, which was eBuivalent to the e+plo"ee<s one +onth
salar". This inde+nit" is intended not to penaliCe the e+plo"er but to vindicate or
reco,niCe the e+plo"ee<s ri,ht to statutor" due process which was violated b" the
e+plo"er.
$4
The violation of the petitioners< ri,ht to statutor" due process b" the private respondent
warrants the pa"+ent of inde+nit" in the for+ of no+inal da+a,es. The a+ount of such
da+a,es is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, takin, into account the
relevant circu+stances.
0%
Considerin, the prevailin, circu+stances in the case at bar,
we dee+ it proper to fiE it at P$%,%%%.%%. 9e believe this for+ of da+a,es would serve
to deter e+plo"ers fro+ future violations of the statutor" due process ri,hts of
e+plo"ees. At the ver" least, it provides a vindication or reco,nition of this funda+ental
ri,ht ,ranted to the latter under the -abor Code and its 2+ple+entin, Rules.
Private respondent clai+s that the Court of Appeals erred in holdin, that it failed to pa"
petitioners< holida" pa", service incentive leave pa" and $th +onth pa".
9e are not persuaded.
9e affir+ the rulin, of the appellate court on petitioners< +one" clai+s. Private
respondent is liable for petitioners< holida" pa", service incentive leave pa" and $th
+onth pa" without deductions.
As a ,eneral rule, one who pleads pa"+ent has the burden of provin, it. Even where
the e+plo"ee +ust alle,e non&pa"+ent, the ,eneral rule is that the burden rests on the
e+plo"er to prove pa"+ent, rather than on the e+plo"ee to prove non&pa"+ent. The
reason for the rule is that the pertinent personnel files, pa"rolls, records, re+ittances
and other si+ilar docu+ents G which will show that overti+e, differentials, service
incentive leave and other clai+s of workers have been paid G are not in the possession
of the worker but in the custod" and absolute control of the e+plo"er.
0
2n the case at bar, if private respondent indeed paid petitioners< holida" pa" and service
incentive leave pa", it could have easil" presented docu+entar" proofs of such
+onetar" benefits to disprove the clai+s of the petitioners. But it did not, eEcept with
respect to the $th +onth pa" wherein it presented cash vouchers showin, pa"+ents of
the benefit in the "ears disputed.
0#
Alle,ations b" private respondent that it does not
operate durin, holida"s and that it allows its e+plo"ees % da"s leave with pa", other
than bein, self&servin,, do not constitute proof of pa"+ent. ConseBuentl", it failed to
dischar,e the onus probandi thereb" +akin, it liable for such clai+s to the petitioners.
Anent the deduction of ((( loan and the value of the shoes fro+ petitioner 3ir,ilio
A,abon<s $th +onth pa", we find the sa+e to be unauthoriCed. The evident intention of
Presidential 6ecree No. 7; is to ,rant an additional income in the for+ of the $th
+onth pa" to e+plo"ees not alread" receivin, the sa+e
0$
so as Hto further protect the
level of real wages from the ravages of world"wide inflation.H
00
Clearl", as additional
inco+e, the $th +onth pa" is included in the definition of wa,e under Article 4*.f/ of
the -abor Code, to wit8
.f/ H9a,eH paid to an" e+plo"ee shall +ean the re+uneration or earnin,s,
however desi,nated, capable of bein, eEpressed in ter+s of +one" whether
fiEed or ascertained on a ti+e, task, piece , or co++ission basis, or other
+ethod of calculatin, the sa+e, which is pa"able b" an e+plo"er to an
e+plo"ee under a written or unwritten contract of e+plo"+ent for work done or
to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered and includes the fair and
reasonable value, as deter+ined b" the (ecretar" of -abor, of board, lod,in,,
or other facilities custo+aril" furnished b" the e+plo"er to the e+plo"eeIH
fro+ which an e+plo"er is prohibited under Article $
0;
of the sa+e Code fro+ +akin,
an" deductions without the e+plo"ee<s knowled,e and consent. 2n the instant case,
private respondent failed to show that the deduction of the ((( loan and the value of
the shoes fro+ petitioner 3ir,ilio A,abon<s $th +onth pa" was authoriCed b" the latter.
The lack of authorit" to deduct is further bolstered b" the fact that petitioner 3ir,ilio
A,abon included the sa+e as one of his +one" clai+s a,ainst private respondent.
The Court of Appeals properl" reinstated the +onetar" clai+s awarded b" the -abor
Arbiter orderin, the private respondent to pa" each of the petitioners holida" pa" for
6
four re,ular holida"s fro+ 44) to 447, in the a+ount of P),;#%.%%, service incentive
leave pa" for the sa+e period in the a+ount of P$,#;;.%% and the balance of 3ir,ilio
A,abon<s thirteenth +onth pa" for 447 in the a+ount of P#,;%.%%.
/+ERE0ORE, in view of the fore,oin,, the petition is ,EN'E,. The decision of the
Court of Appeals dated !anuar" #$, #%%$, in CA&'.R. (P No. )$%*, findin, that
petitioners< !enn" and 3ir,ilio A,abon abandoned their work, and orderin, private
respondent to pa" each of the petitioners holida" pa" for four re,ular holida"s fro+
44) to 447, in the a+ount of P),;#%.%%, service incentive leave pa" for the sa+e
period in the a+ount of P$,#;;.%% and the balance of 3ir,ilio A,abon<s thirteenth +onth
pa" for 447 in the a+ount of P#,;%.%% is !00'RME, with the MO,'0'C!T'ON that
private respondent Riviera 1o+e 2+prove+ents, 2nc. is further OR,ERE, to pa" each
of the petitioners the a+ount of P$%,%%%.%% as no+inal da+a,es for non&co+pliance
with statutor" due process.
No costs.
SO OR,ERE,.
7