Serrano vs
National Labor Relations Commission
Facts:
A petition was filed seeking a review of a resolution made by the
National Labor relations commission which reversed the decision rendered by
theLaborArbiter and dismissed petitioner's complaint for illegal dismissal and
denied his motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner was hired by private respondent Isetann Department Store.
Sometime in 1991, as a cost-cutting measure, said respondent decided to phase
out its entire security section and engage the services of an independent
security agency. A memorandum was subsequently wrote to petitioner informing
him of his termination immediately (date of effectivity of termination was
exactly the same as the date the memorandum was made).
Issue:
WON there was a violation of petitioner's right to due process when
respondent-employer failed to give the required 1 month notice provided in the
Labor Code.
Held:
"It is now settled that where the dismissal of one employee is in
fact for a just and valid cause and is so proven to be but he is not accorded
his right to due process, i.e., he was not furnished the twin requirements of
notice and opportunity to be heard, the dismissal shall be upheld but the
employer must be sanctioned for non-compliance with the requirements of, or for
failure to observe, due process."
There are three reasons why, on the other hand, violation by the employer
of the notice requirement cannot be considered a denial of due process
resulting in the nullity of the employee's dismissal or layoff.
The first is that the Due Process Clause of the Constitution is a
limitation on governmental powers. It does not apply to the exercise of private
power, such as the termination of employment under the Labor Code. This is
plain from the text of Art. III, §1 of the Constitution, viz.: "No person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. . .
." The reason is simple: Only the State has authority to take the life,
liberty, or property of the individual. The purpose of the Due Process Clause
is to ensure that the exercise of this power is consistent with what are
considered civilized methods.
The second reason is that notice and hearing are required under the Due
Process Clause before the power of organized society are brought to bear upon
the individual. This is obviously not the case of termination of employment
under Art. 283. Here the employee is not faced with an aspect of the adversary
system. The purpose for requiring a 30-day written notice before an employee is
laid off is not to afford him an opportunity to be heard on any charge against
him, for there is none. The purpose rather is to give him time to prepare for
the eventual loss of his job and the DOLE an opportunity to determine whether
economic causes do exist justifying the termination of his employment.
The third reason why the notice requirement under Art. 283 can not be
considered a requirement of the Due Process Clause is that the employer cannot
really be expected to be entirely an impartial judge of his own cause. This is
also the case in termination of employment for a just cause under Art. 282.
We hold, therefore, that, with respect to Art. 283 of the Labor Code, the
employer's failure to comply with the notice requirement does not constitute a
denial of due process but a mere failure to observe a procedure for the
termination of employment which makes the termination of employment merely
ineffectual. Indeed, under the Labor Code, only the absence of a just cause for
the termination of employment can make the dismissal of an employee illegal.