Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Agabon v. NLRC
Agabon v. NLRC
Agabon v. NLRC
NLRC
FACTS:
Petitioners Virgilio and Jenny Agabon were employed as gypsum board and cornice installers
bu private respondent Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. Both were dismissed for abandon-
ment of work. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of money claims.
According to Petitioners, they were dismissed because the private respondent refused to give
them assignments unless they agreed to work on a "pakyaw" basis. They refused because it
would mean losing benefits as SSS members. Additionally, respondent did not comply with the
requirement of notice and hearing
While Respondent claims that petitioners abandoned their work, and that respondent had sent
two letters to the last known addresses of the petitioners advising them to report for work. Ad-
ditionally, the manager has also talked to Virgilio by telephone to tell him about the new as-
signment at Pacific Plaza Towers, but petitioners did not report for work because they had
subcontracted to perform installation work for another company. And when the petitioners de-
mand for an increase in their wage was denied, they had stopped working and then filed t he
illegal dismissal case.
ISSUE:
a. WoN the terminations of petitioners were for a just and valid cause
b. WoN the procedures for dismissal were observed
RULING:
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 him-
self.
a. YES. Petitioners were frequently absent having subcontracted for an installation work
for another company. Subcontracting for another company clearly showed the intention to
The law imposes many obligations on the employer such as providing just compensation to
workers, observance of the procedural requirements of notice and hearing in the termina-
tion of employment. On the other hand, the law also recognizes the right of the employer to
expect from its workers not only good performance, adequate work and diligence, but also
good conduct and loyalty. The employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such
persons whose continuance in the service will patently be inimical to his interests
b. NO. The dismissal should be upheld because it was established that the petitioners aban-
doned their jobs to work for another company. Private respondent, however, did not fol-
low the notice requirements and instead argued that sending notices to the last known ad-
dresses 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 no-
tice requirements to the employee's last known address. Thus, it should be held liable for
non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process.
The unfairness of declaring illegal or ineffectual dismissals for valid or authorized causes
but not complying with statutory due process may have far-reaching consequences. This
would encourage frivolous suits, where even the most notorious violators of company policy
are rewarded by invoking due process. This also creates absurd situations where there is a
just or authorized cause for dismissal but a procedural infirmity invalidates the termina-
tion.
Abandonment - the deliberate and unjusti- In case of termination, the foregoing notices
fied refusal of an employee to resume his em- shall be served on the employee's last known
ployment address.
- form of neglect of duty
Dismissal based on just causes - contem-
without valid or justifiable reason; and - implies that the employee concerned has
2. A clear intention to sever employer-em- committed, or is guilty of, some violation
ployee relationship (must be shown it was against the employer
deliberate and unjustified)
Dismissal based on authorized causes - in-
Procedure for terminating an employee volve grounds under the Labor Code which
(Book VI, Rule I, Section 2(d) of the Omnibus allow the employer to terminate employees
Rules Implementing the Labor Code): - requires payment of separation pay
Art. 279 - When the termination of employ- low the due process requirement, the dis-
ment is declared illegal, reinstatement and missal may be upheld but the employer will
4 possible situations:
1. Dismissal for just and authorized cause;
Due process was observed = valid; em-
ployer suffers no liability
2. Dismissal without just or authorized
cause; due process was observed = dis-
missals are illegal; ; reinstatement
3. Dismissal without just or authorized
cause; no due process = dismissals are il-
legal; ; reinstatement
4. Dismissal for just and authorized cause;
No due process = dismissal should be
upheld; employer liable for non-compli-
ance with the procedural requirements of
due process.