The Manila Times

Dismissal based on authorized cause

DEAR PAO PERSIDA ACOSTA Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net

Dear PAO,

I used to work as a food packer in a food manufacturing company. When a machine was installed to do our job, we were immediately terminated by our employer. Our employer reasoned that the termination was valid because the installation of a labor saving device is one of the authorized causes for termination of employment. Is our termination legal despite our employer’s non-compliance with the notice requirement?

Marco

Dear Marco, Installation of a labor saving device, which is the basis for the termination of your employment, is indeed one of the authorized causes under the Labor Code. The employer, however, is required to comply with the twin-notice requirement prescribed by the Labor Code in observance of due process. Otherwise, even if the dismissal is deemed legal, non-observance of due process will entail payment of damages.

In a similar landmark case decided by the Honorable Supreme Court, which also involved an employee who was dismissed based on an authorized cause and whose employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, it was held that:

“[The violation of 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. We believe this form of damages would serve to deter employers from future violations of the statutory due process rights of employees. At the very least, it provides a vindication or recognition of this fundamental right granted to the latter under the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules.]

“The difference between Agabon and the instant case is that in the former, the dismissal was based on a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code while in the present case, respondents were dismissed due to retrenchment, which is one of the authorized causes under Article 283 of the same Code.

“At this point, we note that there are divergent implications of a dismissal for just cause under Article 282, on one hand, and a dismissal for authorized cause under Article 283, on the other. x x x

“Accordingly, it is wise to hold that: (1) 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; and (2) 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 exercise of his management prerogative. x x x” (Emphasis supplied) (Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Darwin Pacot, et al., GR 151378, 28 March 2005, Ponente: Associate Justice Cancio Garcia)

The Agabon Doctrine which was mentioned in the above-cited jurisprudence declared that the violation of the employee’s right to due process in just cause termination warrants the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages. At that time, the amount of P30,000 was fixed by the Court. In the case of Jaka, the Court differentiated between dismissal based on just cause and dismissal based on authorized cause. The Court held that in dismissals based on authorized cause, the sanction should be stiffer when there is non-compliance with the notice requirement since in dismissals based on authorized cause, the termination process was initiated by the employer’s exercise of his management prerogative. Hence, the nominal damages were fixed by the Court at P50,000.

As in your case, your termination due to the installation of a labor saving device may be considered legal. However, your employer may still be held liable for damages for his or her failure to observe due process in effecting your termination.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

News

en-ph

2023-05-28T07:00:00.0000000Z

2023-05-28T07:00:00.0000000Z

https://manilatimes.pressreader.com/article/281573770070504

The Manila Times