ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 164860 : February 2, 2010 HILTON HEAVY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION and PETER LIM, Petitioners, v. ANANIAS P. DY, Respondent. D E C I S I O N CARPIO, J.: The Case This is a petition for review1cralaw assailing the Decision2cralaw promulgated on 30 May 2003 of the Court of Appeals (appellate court) in CA-G.R. SP No. 72454 as well as the Resolution3cralaw promulgated on 6 August 2004. The appellate court partly granted the petition filed by respondent Ananias P. Dy (Dy) and ruled that Dy was dismissed for just cause but was not entitled to reinstatement and separation pay. The appellate court ordered Hilton Heavy Equipment Corporation and its President, Peter Lim, (petitioners) to pay Dy backwages from the time of Dy's termination on 19 May 2000 up to the time of the finality of the decision less the amount of The Facts The appellate court narrated the facts as follows:
On 19 June 2000, Dy filed a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Regional Arbitration Branch VII in Cebu City against petitioners for illegal dismissal and non-payment of labor standard benefits with claim for damages and attorney's fees. The case was docketed as NLRC RAB-VIII Case No. 06-1003-2000. The Labor Arbiter's Ruling In his Decision dated 25 August 2000, Labor Arbiter Ernesto F. Carreon (Arbiter Carreon) dismissed Dy's complaint for illegal dismissal because Dy stopped working when he was given separation pay of Complainant Dy was not terminated from the service. The record reveals that complainant Dy mauled one Duke Echiverri even in the presence of respondent Lim who was his superior. Complainant Dy apparently possesses violent character that even with the pacification made by his superior he continued on delivering fistic blows to his victim and even threatened him with death. At present complainant Dy is facing criminal charges in the Municipal Trial Court of Mandaue City for his criminal acts. Complainant Dy could have been validly dismissed for the said mauling incident because fighting in the company premises and disorderly or violent behavior are just causes for termination of employment. But complainant Dy instead opted to stop working when given separation benefits in the amount of P120,000.00. In a nutshell we find that in case of complainant Dy there is no dismissal let alone illegal dismissal to speak of.5cralaw The Fourth Division of the NLRC affirmed the ruling of Arbiter Carreon. In its Decision6cralaw promulgated on 6 July 2001, the NLRC stated that:
In its Resolution promulgated on 20 June 2002, the NLRC further stated:
Thus, complainant Ananias Dy was not illegally dismissed.8cralaw Dy assailed the NLRC's decision and resolution before the appellate court. Dy imputed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction upon the NLRC for the following reasons:
The Decision of the Appellate Court The appellate court ruled that Dy did not voluntarily resign from his employment, but there was a valid cause for Dy's termination from employment. Petitioners, however, failed to observe due process in terminating Dy's services. The appellate court decided that Dy was dismissed for just cause but was not entitled to reinstatement. The appellate court awarded Dy full backwages, computed from the time he was terminated until finality of the present Decision, but did not award separation pay. The amount of The Issues Petitioners raise the following issues in their petition:
The Ruling of the Court The petition has partial merit. Although petitioners failed to show that the appellate court arbitrarily made factual findings and disregarded the evidence on record, the amount of The pertinent Articles of the Labor Code read as follows: Art. 282. Termination by Employer . An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
Art. 285. Termination by Employee . (a) An employee may terminate without just cause the employee-employer relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at least one (1) month in advance. The employer upon whom no such notice was served may hold the employee liable for damages. (b) An employee may put an end to the relationship without serving any notice on the employer for any of the following just causes:
We will not disturb the finding that Dy was the perpetrator in a mauling incident, as well as the ruling that Dy's act is a just cause for termination. However, we also observe that petitioners failed to accord Dy due process. Petitioners assert that Dy intended to sever the employer-employee relationship by his mere failure to return to work. One month after the mauling incident, petitioners summoned Dy to give him a check worth Petitioners assert that Dy abandoned his work. To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts.12cralaw In the present case, Dy reported for work after the mauling incident only on 19 May 2000, after petitioner Lim called him to the office. On the other hand, apart from Dy's absence, petitioners failed to show any evidence of Dy's clear intent to sever his ties with petitioners. Dy, on the other hand, asserts that petitioners are guilty of illegal dismissal for failure to observe due process. Dy's serious misconduct merited a written notice of termination from petitioners in accordance with Section 2, Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. Section 2. Standards of due process; requirements of due notice. In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed:
In case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be served on the employee's last known address. Moreover, the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal against the employer with a prayer for reinstatement shows that the employee was not abandoning his work. In an unlawful dismissal case, the employer has the burden of proving the lawful cause sustaining the dismissal of the employee. The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause.13cralaw Dy's behavior constituted just cause. However, petitioners cannot deny that they failed to observe due process. The law requires that the employer must furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected: (1) notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. Failure to comply with the requirements taints the dismissal with illegality.14cralaw Petitioners should thus indemnify Dy for their failure to observe the requirements of due process. Dy is not entitled to reinstatement, backwages and attorney's fees because Dy's dismissal is for just cause but without due process.15cralaw In light of this Court's ruling in Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission ,16cralaw the violation of Dy's right to statutory due process by petitioners, even if the dismissal was for a just cause, warrants the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages. This indemnity is intended not to penalize the employer but to vindicate or recognize the employee's right to statutory due process which was violated by the employer.17cralaw Considering that both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found that petitioners already gave Dy WHEREFORE, we GRANTthe petition. We AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the Decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 30 May 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 72454 as well as the Resolution promulgated on 6 August 2004. The amount of SO ORDERED. ANTONIO T. CARPIO WE CONCUR: RENATO C. CORONA*
JOSE P. PEREZ 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 was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. ANTONIO T. CARPIO C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Endnotes:
|