AGABON vs NLRC GR 158693 November 17, 2004

Need for Implementing Legislation

AGABON vs NLRC GR 158693

Facts:

Private respondent Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. is engaged in the business of selling and installing ornamental and construction materials. It employed petitioners Virgilio Agabon and Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice installers on January 2, 1992 until February 23, 1999 when they were dismissed for abandonment of work. Thus, Petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of money claims

Petitioners also claim that private respondent did not comply with the twin requirements of notice and hearing. Private respondent, on the other hand, maintained that petitioners were not dismissed but had abandoned their work.

Labor Arbiter declared the dismissals illegal. Holiday pay, service incentives leave pay 1996,1997,1998, premium pay for holidays and rest days 13^th month pay differentials

On Appeal, NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, the Agabons abandoned their work, no entitled to backwages and separation pay, and the other money claims.

Agabon filed certiorari with the CA. CA: dismissal was not illegal, but ordered the payment of money claims.

Issue: Petition for review to SC WON petitioners were illegally dismissed.

Held:

Accordingly, petitioners’ dismissal was for a just cause. They had abandoned their employment and were already working for another employer.

To dismiss an employee, the law requires not only the existence of a just and valid cause but also enjoins the employer to give the employee the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.

Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. It is a form of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the employer. 

 

After establishing that the terminations were for a just and valid cause, we now determine if the procedures for dismissal were observed.

The procedure for terminating an employee is found in Book VI, Rule I, Section 2(d) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code:

Standards of due process: requirements of notice. – In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed:

For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Code:

1.     A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side;

1.     A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the employee so desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him; and

(c) A written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination.

In case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be served on the employee’s last known address.

Procedurally, (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282, the employer must give the employee two written notices and a hearing or opportunity to be heard if requested by the employee before terminating the employment: a notice specifying the grounds for which dismissal is sought a hearing or an opportunity to be heard and after hearing or opportunity to be heard, a notice of the decision to dismiss; and (2) if the dismissal is based on authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284, the employer must give the employee and the Department of Labor and Employment written notices 30 days prior to the effectivity of his separation.

From the foregoing rules four possible situations may be derived: (1) the dismissal is for a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code, for an authorized cause under Article 283, or for health reasons under Article 284, and due process was observed; (2) the dismissal is without just or authorized cause but due process was observed; (3) the dismissal is without just or authorized cause and there was no due process; and (4) the dismissal is for just or authorized cause but due process was not observed.

The present case squarely falls under the fourth situation. The dismissal should be upheld because it was established that the petitioners abandoned their jobs to work for another company. Private respondent, however, did not follow the notice requirements and instead argued that sending notices to the last known addresses would have been useless because they did not reside there anymore. Unfortunately for the private respondent, this is not a valid excuse because the law mandates the twin notice requirements to the employee’s last known address. Thus, it should be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process.

Petition denied. CA affirmed with modifications.