Dismissal with Just Cause, Flawed Procedure: Why Nominal Damages Matter

TLDR: Even when an employee’s termination is justified (for just cause), Philippine law mandates strict adherence to procedural due process. Failure to provide proper notice and hearing, even in cases of valid dismissal, can lead to employers being ordered to pay nominal damages. This case clarifies that substantial justice requires both a valid reason for termination and a fair process.

G.R. No. 173291, February 08, 2012

INTRODUCTION

Imagine losing your job not because you didn’t deserve to be employed, but because your employer failed to follow the correct steps in letting you go. In the Philippines, labor law protects employees not only from unfair dismissal but also from dismissals that, while justified, are carried out improperly. The case of Romeo A. Galang v. Cityland Shaw Tower, Inc. highlights this crucial distinction. This case is a stark reminder to employers that even when there’s a valid reason to terminate an employee, failing to adhere to procedural due process can still result in legal repercussions, albeit in the form of nominal damages. This seemingly small detail can have significant implications for both employers and employees navigating the complexities of termination.

LEGAL CONTEXT: JUST CAUSE AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

Philippine labor law, specifically the Labor Code of the Philippines, safeguards workers from arbitrary termination. Article 294 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code outlines the ‘just causes’ for which an employer may terminate an employee. These include serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duties, fraud or willful breach of trust, commission of a crime or offense, and analogous causes.

However, having a just cause is only half the battle for employers. The law also mandates procedural due process, ensuring fairness in the termination process. This is enshrined in Article 292 (formerly Article 277) (b) of the Labor Code, which states:

“Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of a representative if he so desires x x x”

The Supreme Court, in numerous cases, has interpreted this to mean that for a dismissal to be valid, employers must follow a two-notice rule. First, an employee must be served a notice of intent to dismiss, clearly stating the grounds for termination and giving the employee an opportunity to explain. Second, after a hearing or investigation, if the employer finds cause for dismissal, a second notice of termination must be issued.

The landmark case of Agabon v. NLRC (485 Phil. 248 [2004]) further refined the consequences of failing to comply with procedural due process. Before Agabon, the prevailing doctrine (Serrano v. NLRC) held that a dismissal for just cause but without due process was illegal, entitling the employee to backwages and reinstatement. Agabon changed this, ruling that if a dismissal is for just cause but procedurally infirm, it is not illegal dismissal. Instead, the employer is liable to pay nominal damages to the employee for the procedural lapse.

CASE BREAKDOWN: GALANG VS. CITYLAND SHAW TOWER, INC.

Romeo Galang, the petitioner, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Cityland Shaw Tower, Inc. and its Building Manager, Virgilio Baldemor. Galang claimed he was illegally dismissed without just cause and due process. Cityland countered that Galang was dismissed for just cause – gross insubordination, harassment, and conduct unbecoming an employee – after a series of incidents, including a prior instance of gross negligence that caused flooding and damage.

Here’s a step-by-step look at how the case unfolded:

1. Labor Arbiter (LA): The LA ruled in favor of Galang, finding that Cityland failed to prove just cause and due process. The LA ordered reinstatement and backwages.
2. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC): The NLRC affirmed the LA’s decision.
3. Court of Appeals (CA): Cityland appealed to the CA, which reversed the NLRC. The CA found that there was just cause for dismissal based on evidence presented, including affidavits detailing Galang’s misconduct. However, the CA also found that Cityland failed to provide procedural due process. Citing Agabon v. NLRC, the CA awarded Galang nominal damages of P30,000.
4. Supreme Court (SC): Galang appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in considering evidence not presented to the LA and NLRC, and in applying Agabon retroactively.

The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, finding no reversible error. The Court stated:

“The CA committed no reversible error and neither did it commit grave abuse of discretion in declaring that Galang had been dismissed for cause. Contrary to Galang’s submission, there is substantial evidence — such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion — supporting the CA decision.”

The SC clarified that the affidavits submitted at the NLRC level merely corroborated earlier evidence already presented to the Labor Arbiter, such as the memorandum detailing Galang’s infractions. The Court emphasized that Galang’s actions, including insubordination and harassment, constituted just cause for dismissal.

Regarding procedural due process, the Supreme Court agreed with the CA that Cityland failed to provide the required notices. The meeting called by the supervisor was not considered proper notice of charges. Therefore, while the dismissal was for just cause, it was procedurally infirm.

Finally, the SC addressed Galang’s argument against the retroactive application of Agabon. The Court reasoned that since the NLRC decision was not yet final when the CA ruled, and Agabon was already the prevailing doctrine at the CA level, the CA correctly applied Agabon. The Court stated, “When the CA ruled on the case, this Court had abandoned the Serrano doctrine in favor of Agabon. Thus, the CA committed no error in applying Agabon to the case.”

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LESSONS FOR EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES

The Galang v. Cityland case underscores the critical importance of procedural due process in employee termination, even when just cause exists. For employers, this means:

• Strictly adhere to the two-notice rule: Issue a Notice to Explain (NTE) detailing the charges and allow the employee to respond. After investigation, issue a Notice of Termination if warranted.
• Conduct a fair investigation: Provide the employee a real opportunity to be heard, present evidence, and defend themselves.
• Document everything: Maintain records of notices, investigations, and any disciplinary actions.
• Seek legal counsel: When considering termination, consult with a labor lawyer to ensure compliance with all legal requirements.

For employees, this case highlights:

• You have the right to due process: Even if you committed an offense, your employer must follow proper procedure before terminating you.
• Nominal damages are possible even with just cause: If your dismissal lacked due process, you may be entitled to nominal damages, even if the reason for termination was valid.
• Know your rights: Familiarize yourself with your rights under the Labor Code, particularly regarding termination of employment.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q1: What are nominal damages?

A: Nominal damages are awarded not to compensate for actual loss, but to recognize that a legal right has been violated. In illegal dismissal cases with procedural lapses but just cause, nominal damages acknowledge the employer’s failure to follow due process.

Q2: How much are nominal damages typically?

A: The amount of nominal damages is discretionary upon the court and varies depending on the circumstances. In Galang, it was P30,000. The Supreme Court has set ranges in previous cases, but it’s not a fixed amount.

Q3: What is the two-notice rule?

A: The two-notice rule requires employers to issue two written notices before terminating an employee for just cause: (1) a Notice to Explain outlining the charges and (2) a Notice of Termination if, after investigation, dismissal is warranted.

Q4: What constitutes ‘just cause’ for dismissal?

A: Just causes are listed in Article 294 of the Labor Code and include serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross negligence, fraud, and other similar offenses.

Q5: Does Agabon v. NLRC apply to all dismissal cases?

A: Yes, Agabon is the prevailing doctrine regarding dismissals for just cause but with procedural lapses. It dictates that nominal damages are the appropriate remedy in such cases, not backwages and reinstatement.

Q6: What should I do if I believe I was illegally dismissed?

A: Consult with a labor lawyer immediately. They can assess your situation, advise you on your rights, and help you file a case if necessary.

Q7: As an employer, how can I avoid illegal dismissal cases?

A: Always follow procedural due process meticulously, document all disciplinary actions, and seek legal advice before terminating an employee. Proper documentation and adherence to the two-notice rule are crucial.

ASG Law specializes in Labor and Employment Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.