This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-09-10 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Lastly, the petitioner posits that the CA should have applied the pronouncement in Serrano v. National Labor Relations Commission[19] instead of that in Wenphil Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission.[20] To recall, the Court held in Wenphil Corporation that the employer should still be sanctioned with an order to indemnify the dismissed employee despite the termination being for cause provided the employer did not observe due process. This holding was modified in Serrano, with the Court ruling that where due process (i.e., the two-notice rule) was not observed, the employer should award the dismissed employee full backwages as the penalty for the violation of due process. Essentially, Serrano tightened the penalty in Wenphil Corporation from mere indemnity to full backwages. | |||||
|
2006-10-17 |
CARPIO-MORALES, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, the validity of termination of services can exist independently of the procedural infirmity in the dismissal. In Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,[18] the Court deemed it best to revisit the doctrine in Serrano,[19] which was cited by petitioners, in relation to Wenphil Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission.[20] After analyzing the consequences of the divergent doctrines on employment termination, the Court held that in cases involving dismissals for cause, but without observance of statutory due process, the better rule is to abandon the Serrano doctrine and to follow Wenphil by declaring that the dismissal was for cause but imposing sanctions on the employer. By so doing, dispensing justice not just to employees but to employers as well is achieved.[21] | |||||
|
2004-11-17 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Prior to 1989, the rule was that a dismissal or termination is illegal if the employee was not given any notice. In the 1989 case of Wenphil Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[23] we reversed this long-standing rule and held that the dismissed employee, although not given any notice and hearing, was not entitled to reinstatement and backwages because the dismissal was for grave misconduct and insubordination, a just ground for termination under Article 282. The employee had a violent temper and caused trouble during office hours, defying superiors who tried to pacify him. We concluded that reinstating the employee and awarding backwages "may encourage him to do even worse and will render a mockery of the rules of discipline that employees are required to observe."[24] We further held that:Under the circumstances, the dismissal of the private respondent for just cause should be maintained. He has no right to return to his former employment. | |||||
|
2004-11-17 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The Court has grappled with the problem of what should be the proper remedial relief of an employee dismissed with just cause, but not afforded either notice or hearing. In a long line of cases, beginning with Wenphil Corp. v. NLRC[63] and up until Serrano in 2000, the Court had deemed an indemnification award as sufficient to answer for the violation by the employer against the employee. However, the doctrine was modified in Serrano. | |||||
|
2000-01-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The rule reversed a long standing policy theretofore followed that even though the dismissal is based on a just cause or the termination of employment is for an authorized cause, the dismissal or termination is illegal if effected without notice to the employee. The shift in doctrine took place in 1989 in Wenphil Corp. v. NLRC.[20] In announcing the change, this Court said:[21] | |||||