ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 152568. February 28, 2005]

TOMAS CLAUDIO vs. CA

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 28 2005 .

G.R. No. 1 52568 (Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Pedro Natividad .)

Before the Court is a "Motion to Refer Case to the Hon. Supreme Court En Banc & To Act and Resolve the Motion for Reconsideration of the Petitioner/Appellants in the name of Justice and Due Process" ^[1] cralaw filed by petitioner Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc., in view of the Court's Decision of February 16, 2004, dismissing the above petition and declaring that the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 62651 was in accord with law. The decretal portion reads:

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED. ^[2] cralaw

The petitioner insisted that the termination of the private respondent's employment was for a just cause, which cannot justify any award of backwages. ^[3] cralaw The petitioner, likewise, claimed that the appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) was filed out of time. ^[4] cralaw It further posited that the Decision of February 16, 2004, in effect, reversed the established jurisprudence on drug addiction. ^[5] cralaw

In a Resolution ^[6] cralaw dated September 27, 2004, the Court denied the petitioner's motion to refer the case to the Court en banc.

The petitioner then filed a supplemental pleading to his motion for reconsideration captioned as "Supplement to the Memorandum on Appeal of Tomas Claudio Memorial Colleges, Inc.," ^[7] cralaw further citing several decided cases concerning drugs. It prayed that the Court give a second serious look at the questioned decision, considering its implications.

The Court noted the petitioner's supplemental pleading in its October 13, 2004 Resolution. ^[8] cralaw On November 4, 2004, the petitioner filed its Manifestation and Motion for Reconsideration of the September 27, 2004 Resolution denying its motion to refer the case to the Court en bane, claiming that to award backwages to an employee who was terminated for cause is a clear violation of the law. ^[9] cralaw The petitioner further pointed out that the laboratory results showed that the private respondent tested positive for drugs, and that the award of backwages in the present case even included the period during which the latter was in jail. ^[10] cralaw The petitioner prayed, among others, that the case be re-assigned to another division.

The Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the Decision of February 16,2004 .

First. The timeliness of the private respondent's petition for review on certiorari under Rule 65, questioning the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) before the Court of Appeals, was amply discussed in the Decision of the Court.

Second. The Court of Appeals made the following findings on the private respondent's dismissal from employment, that the respondent was dismissed for just cause:

Trite is the jurisprudence that mere existence of basis for believing that the employee has breached the trust of the employer is sufficient and does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, when an employee has been guilty of breach of trust or his employer has ample reason to distrust him, a labor tribunal cannot deny the employer the authority to dismiss him. Loss of trust and confidence as a just cause for dismissing an employee does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. An employer needs only to establish sufficient basis for the dismissal of the employee.

The fact that the criminal complaint against the petitioner did not prosper is of no moment, specially as the dismissal was due to a technicality. Proof beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases is not necessary in termination cases. It is sufficient that there be some basis for such loss of confidence and that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct that would render him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of his position, such as in the case under consideration. It goes further that even the dropping of a criminal prosecution for an employee's alleged misconduct does not bar his dismissal. ^[11] cralaw

The petitioner did not question such ruling of the CA; neither did the private respondent. Thus, the Court had no basis of even discussing the issue of whether or not the private respondent was dismissed for just cause in the present recourse. Such factual finding of the CA is binding upon this Court.

Third. While the petitioner repeatedly harped on the government's campaign against drug addiction and other related illegal activities attached to it, it did not even offer any explanation as to its failure to observe the two-notice rule when it terminated the private respondent's employment.

In the recent case of Jenny M. Agabon and Virgilio C. Agabon vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. and Vicente Angeles, ^[12] the Court en banc ruled that when there is a valid cause for the termination of employment but the employer fails to observe the two-notice rule, an award of nominal damages in the amount of P30,000.00 is proper. Thus:

Where the dismissal is for a just cause, as in the instant case, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual. However, the employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory rights, as ruled in Reta v. National Labor Relations Commission. The indemnity to be imposed should be stiffer to discourage the abhorrent practice of "dismiss now, pay later," which we sought to deter in the Serrano ruling. The sanction should be in the nature of indemnification or penalty and should depend on the facts of each case, taking into special consideration the gravity of the due process violation of the employer.

Under the Civil Code, nominal damages is adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.

As enunciated by this Court in Viernes v. National Labor Relations Commission , an employer is liable to pay indemnity in the form of nominal damages to an employee who has been dismissed if, in effecting such dismissal, the employer fails to comply with the requirements of due process. The Court, after considering the circumstances therein, fixed the indemnity at P2,590.50, which was equivalent to the employee's one month salary. This indemnity is intended not to penalize the employer but to vindicate or recognize the employee's right to statutory due process which was violated by the employer.

The violation of the petitioner's 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 jn the case at bar, we deem it proper to fix it at P 30,000.00. 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. ^[13] cralaw

In light of this ruling, the Court's Decision of February 16, 2004 must be modified accordingly.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of the February 16, 2004 Decision of the Court, as well as the Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of September 27, 2004, is hereby DENIED for lack-of merit. The February 16, 2004 Decision of the Court is MODIFIED as follows: petitioner Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. is hereby ORDERED to pay Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as nominal damages to private respondent Pedro Natividad, in lieu of damages in the form of backwages from June 13, 1996 up to the finality of judgment.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 270.

^[2] cralaw Id.at 269.

^[3] cralaw Id.at 287.

^[4] cralaw Id.at 286.

^[5] cralaw Id.at 276.

^[6] cralaw Id.at 340.

^[7] cralaw Id.at 341.

^[8] cralaw Id.at 366.

^[9] cralaw Id.at 369.

^[10] cralaw Id.at 370.

^[11] cralaw Id. at 44-45.

^[12] cralaw G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004.

^[13] cralaw Id.at 15-16.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011