Photo from Unsplash | Will Porada
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
An employee’s removal for just cause or authorized cause but without complying with the proper procedure does not invalidate the dismissal. (Distribution & Control Products, Inc. v. Jeffrey Santos, G.R. No. 212616, July 10, 2017)
Law and jurisprudence allow the award of nominal damages in favor of an employee in a case where a valid cause for dismissal exists but the employer fails to observe due process in dismissing the employee. (Libcap Marketing Corporation v. Lanny Jean Baquial, G.R. No. 192011, June 30, 2014)
Nominal damages are awarded for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing a right and not for indemnifying a loss. (Libcap Marketing Corporation v. Lanny Jean Baquial, G.R. No. 192011, June 30, 2014)
In determining whether an employee’s dismissal had been legal, the inquiry focuses on whether the dismissal violated his right to substantial and procedural due process. An employee’s right not to be dismissed without just or authorized cause as provided by law, is covered by his right to substantial due process. Compliance with procedure provided in the Labor Code, on the other hand, constitutes the procedural due process right of an employee.
The violation of either the substantial due process right or the procedural due process right of an employee produces different results. Termination without a just or authorized cause renders the dismissal invalid, and entitles the employee to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time the compensation was not paid up to the time of actual reinstatement.
An employee’s removal for just or authorized cause but without complying with the proper procedure, on the other hand, does not invalidate the dismissal. It obligates the erring employer to pay nominal damages to the employee, as penalty for not complying with the procedural requirements of due process. (Distribution & Control Products, Inc. v. Jeffrey Santos, G.R. No. 212616, July 10, 2017)
Law and jurisprudence allow the award of nominal damages in favor of an employee in a case where a valid cause for dismissal exists but the employer fails to observe due process in dismissing the employee. (Libcap Marketing Corporation v. Lanny Jean Baquial, G.R. No. 192011, June 30, 2014)
Under the law, nominal damages may be awarded to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right, and not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. Its award is thus not for the purpose of indemnification for a loss but for the recognition and vindication of a right.
It must be noted that the amount of nominal damages to be awarded to the employee is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into consideration the relevant circumstances. However, although the court is given latitude to determine the amount of nominal damages to be awarded to an employee who was validly dismissed but whose due process rights were violated, a distinction should be made between a valid dismissal due to just causes and authorized cases.
A dismissal for just cause under Article 297 of the Labor Code implies that the employee concerned has committed, or is guilty of, some violation against the employer, that is, the employee has committed some serious misconduct, is guilty of some fraud against the employer, or has neglected his duties. Thus, it can be said that the employee himself initiated the dismissal process.
On the other hand, a dismissal for an authorized cause under Article 298 of the Labor Code does not necessarily imply delinquency or culpability on the part of the employee. Instead, the dismissal process is initiated by the employer’s exercise of his management prerogative, that is, when the employer opts to install labor saving devices, when he decides to cease business operations or when, as in this case, he undertakes to implement a retrenchment program.
In conclusion, if an employee is dismissed without a valid cause, the dismissal is invalid, and the employee is entitled to reinstatement and backwages. However, if the dismissal is for a valid cause but proper procedure is not followed, the dismissal remains valid, but the employer may be required to pay nominal damages to the employee.
Related Article/s:
Due Process in Labor Proceedings | Alburo Law Offices
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.