HILTON HEAVY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION and PETER LIM,

vs. ANANIAS P. DY, G.R. No. 164860, February 2, 2010

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.

T!" Ca#"

This is a petition for review assailing the Decision promulgated on 30
ay 2003 of the !ourt of "ppeals #appellate court$ in !"%&.'. () *o.
+2,-, as well as the 'esolution promulgated on . "ugust 200,. The
appellate court partly granted the petition filed by respondent "nanias ). Dy
#Dy$ and ruled that Dy was dismissed for /ust cause but was not entitled to
reinstatement and separation pay. The appellate court ordered 0ilton 0eavy
12uipment !orporation and its )resident, )eter 3im, #petitioners$ to pay Dy
bac4wages from the time of Dy5s termination on 16 ay 2000 up to the time
of the finality of the decision less the amount of )120,000 which Dy
received as separation pay.


T!" $a%&#

The appellate court narrated the facts as follows7

"nanias Dy #hereafter, 8D9:$ was employed at 0ilton 0eavy 12uipment
!orporation #hereafter, the 8!;');'"T<;*:$. <n the course of his employment, he
was assigned as the personal bodyguard of )eter 3im #hereafter, 83<:$, the )resident of
the said !orporation. ;n 16 "pril 2000, in the presence of the !orporation5s employees
and 3im, Dy mauled Du4e 1chiverri, a co%employee, within the premises of the principal
office of the !orporation. Dy defied orders of 3im to stop mauling Du4e 1chiverri. Dy
also threatened to 4ill the latter, and uttered that if he will be given monetary
consideration, he will cease wor4ing in the company. &eraldine !han, (ecretary of the
!orporation, e=ecuted an affidavit attesting to the fact of Dy5s utterance of his intention
to resign from his /ob. Thereafter, Dy stopped reporting to wor4. (ubse2uently, Du4e
1chiverri filed criminal complaints against Dy for grave threats and less serious physical
in/uries and the corresponding <nformations were filed before the unicipal Trial !ourt
in !ities, andaue !ity. These cases were later dismissed upon motion filed by Du4e
1chiverri. " month after the mauling incident, on 16 ay 2000, 3im re2uested Dy to
come to the office where he was confronted by 3im and >ellington 3im, 3im5s
brother. Thereat, Dy was paid by >ellington 3im the amount of )120,000.00 as may be
shown by (olidban4 andaue ?ranch !hec4 *o. !D 0-60+-0 dated 16 ay 2000
payable to cash, as separation pay.


;n 16 @une 2000, Dy filed a complaint before the *ational 3abor
'elations !ommission #*3'!$ 'egional "rbitration ?ranch A<< in !ebu
!ity against petitioners for illegal dismissal and non%payment of labor
standard benefits with claim for damages and attorney5s fees. The case was
doc4eted as *3'! '"?%A<<< !ase *o. 0.%1003%2000.

T!" La'o( A(')&"(*# R+,)n-


1
<n his Decision dated 2- "ugust 2000, 3abor "rbiter 1rnesto F.
!arreon #"rbiter !arreon$ dismissed Dy5s complaint for illegal dismissal
because Dy stopped wor4ing when he was given separation pay of
)120,000 "rbiter !arreon e=plained thus7

!omplainant Dy was not terminated from the service. The record reveals that
complainant Dy mauled one Du4e 1chiverri even in the presence of respondent 3im who
was his superior. !omplainant Dy apparently possesses violent character that even with
the pacification made by his superior he continued on delivering fistic blows to his victim
and even threatened him with death. "t present complainant Dy is facing criminal
charges in the unicipal Trial !ourt of andaue !ity for his criminal acts. !omplainant
Dy could have been validly dismissed for the said mauling incident because fighting in
the company premises and disorderly or violent behavior are /ust causes for termination
of employment. ?ut complainant Dy instead opted to stop wor4ing when given
separation benefits in the amount of )120,000.00. <n a nutshell we find that in case of
complainant Dy there is no dismissal let alone illegal dismissal to spea4 of.


The Fourth Division of the *3'! affirmed the ruling of "rbiter
!arreon. <n its Decision promulgated on . @uly 2001, the *3'! stated that7

Thus as correctly found by the 3abor "rbiter, the mauling incident by itself was a
valid ground to terminate complainant5s services considering that the victim was a
manager and therefore a duly authoriBed representative of respondents. <t does not matter
later on that the case was settled by the e=ecution of an affidavit of desistance because
8conviction of an employee in a criminal case is not indispensable to warrant his
dismissal by his employer and that the fact that a criminal complaint against the
employee has been dropped by the !ity Fiscal is not binding and conclusive upon a labor
tribunal.: #(tarlite )lastic <ndustrial !orp. vs. *3'!, 1+1 (!'" 31-$

oreover, records reveal that after the mauling incident which occurred on a
0oly >ednesday, complainant did not report to the office anymore. ?ut because he
earlier intimated that he was willing to accept a separation pay, he was called to the office
last ay 16, 2000 and was given a chec4 in the amount of ;ne 0undred Twenty
Thousand #)120,000.00$ )esos. This was testified to by &eraldine !han, (ecretary of
respondent 0ilton 0eavy 12uipment !orporation who e=ecuted a sworn statement to that
effect #pp. 36%,0, 'ecords$. " copy of (olid ?an4 !hec4 *o. !D 0-6+-0 dated 16 ay
2000 in the amount of ;ne 0undred Twenty Thousand #)120,000.00$ somehow validated
her statement #p. ,1, 'ecords$. Cnder these circumstances, >e find that the 3abor
"rbiter did not err in ruling that there was no illegal dismissal.


<n its 'esolution promulgated on 20 @une 2002, the *3'! further
stated7

'esignation is the voluntary act of an employee who finds himself in a situation
where he believes that personal reason cannot be sacrificed in favor of the e=igency of
the service, then he has no other choice but to dissociate himself from his employment.
'esignation may be e=press or implied. ?y Dy5s acceptance of the amount of
)120,000.00 on 16 ay 2000, he is deemed to have opted to terminate voluntarily his
services with the respondent company.

Thus, complainant "nanias Dy was not illegally dismissed.


2
Dy assailed the *3'!5s decision and resolution before the appellate
court. Dy imputed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac4 or e=cess of
/urisdiction upon the *3'! for the following reasons7

1. There is not a single substantial evidence to prove that petitioner DDyE
had actually resigned from his employment with private respondentsF

2. There is li4ewise not a single evidence to prove that petitioner DDyE
had actually received the so%called separation pay of )120,000.00F

3. "s there is no substantial evidence to show petitioner DDyE had
resigned from employment, public respondents therefore gravely
abused their discretion in finding the contrary. Truth is, petitioner
DDyE was actually illegally dismissed from employment as petitioner5s
rights to substantive and procedural due process were grossly violated.






T!" D"%)#)on o. &!" A//",,a&" Co+(&

The appellate court ruled that Dy did not voluntarily resign from his
employment, but there was a valid cause for Dy5s termination from
employment. )etitioners, however, failed to observe due process in
terminating Dy5s services. The appellate court decided that Dy was
dismissed for /ust cause but was not entitled to reinstatement. The appellate
court awarded Dy full bac4wages, computed from the time he was
terminated until finality of the present Decision, but did not award
separation pay. The amount of )120,000 given to Dy as supposed
separation pay should be treated as partial payment of Dy5s bac4wages. The
appellate court subse2uently denied the motion for reconsideration filed by
petitioners in a 'esolution promulgated on . "ugust 200,.


T!" I##+"#

)etitioners raise the following issues in their petition7

1. The 0onorable !ourt of "ppeals committed a reversible error in
finding that DDyE did not resign from his employment.

2. The 0onorable !ourt of "ppeals committed a reversible error in
ordering the petitioners to pay DDyE his bac4wages from the time of his
termination on ay 16, 2000 up to the time that its Decision becomes
final.


T!" R+,)n- o. &!" Co+(&

The petition has partial merit. "lthough petitioners failed to show that
the appellate court arbitrarily made factual findings and disregarded the
3
evidence on record, the amount of )120,000 paid by petitioners to Dy
constitutes a sufficient award of nominal damages.
The pertinent "rticles of the 3abor !ode read as follows7

"rt. 2G2. Termination by Employer. H "n employer may terminate an
employment for any of the following causes7

#a$ (erious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful
orders of his employer or representative in connection with his wor4F

#b$ &ross and habitual neglect by the employee of his dutiesF

#c$ Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his
employer or duly authoriBed representativeF

#d$ !ommission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of
his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authoriBed
representativeF and

#e$ ;ther causes analogous to the foregoing.

"rt. 2G-. Termination by Employee. H #a$ "n employee may terminate without
/ust cause the employee%employer relationship by serving a written notice on the
employer at least one #1$ month in advance. The employer upon whom no such notice
was served may hold the employee liable for damages.

#b$ "n employee may put an end to the relationship without serving any notice
on the employer for any of the following /ust causes7

1. (erious insult by the employer or his representative on the honor and person
of the employeeF

2. <nhuman and unbearable treatment accorded the employee by the employer or
his representativeF

3. !ommission of a crime or offense by the employer or his representative
against the person of the employee or any of the immediate members of his familyF and

,. ;ther causes analogous to any of the foregoing.


>e will not disturb the finding that Dy was the perpetrator in a
mauling incident, as well as the ruling that Dy5s act is a /ust cause for
termination. 0owever, we also observe that petitioners failed to accord Dy
due process.


)etitioners assert that Dy intended to sever the employer%employee
relationship by his mere failure to return to wor4. ;ne month after the
mauling incident, petitioners summoned Dy to give him a chec4 worth
)120,000 as separation pay. Dy, on the other hand, never gave a resignation
letter to petitioners but instead filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
them.

)etitioners assert that Dy abandoned his wor4. To constitute
abandonment, two elements must concur7 #1$ the failure to report for wor4
or absence without valid or /ustifiable reason, and #2$ a clear intention to
,
sever the employer%employee relationship, with the second element as the
more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. <n the
present case, Dy reported for wor4 after the mauling incident only on
16 ay 2000, after petitioner 3im called him to the office. ;n the other
hand, apart from Dy5s absence, petitioners failed to show any evidence of
Dy5s clear intent to sever his ties with petitioners.

Dy, on the other hand, asserts that petitioners are guilty of illegal
dismissal for failure to observe due process. Dy5s serious misconduct
merited a written notice of termination from petitioners in accordance with
(ection 2, 'ule II<<<, ?oo4 A of the ;mnibus 'ules <mplementing the
3abor !ode.

(ection 2. Standards of due process; requirements of due notice. H <n all cases
of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be
substantially observed7

<. For termination of employment based on /ust causes as defined in "rticle
2G2 of the !ode7

#a$ " written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds
for termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to
e=plain his sideF


#b$ " hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the
assistance of counsel if the employee so desires, is given opportunity to respond to the
charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against himF and

#c$ " written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that
upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to /ustify
his termination.

<n case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be served on the employee5s
last 4nown address.


oreover, the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal against
the employer with a prayer for reinstatement shows that the employee was
not abandoning his wor4.

<n an unlawful dismissal case, the employer has the burden of proving
the lawful cause sustaining the dismissal of the employee. The employer
must affirmatively show rationally ade2uate evidence that the dismissal was
for a /ustifiable cause. Dy5s behavior constituted /ust cause. 0owever,
petitioners cannot deny that they failed to observe due process. The law
re2uires that the employer must furnish the wor4er sought to be dismissed
with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally
effected7 #1$ notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or
omissions for which his dismissal is soughtF and #2$ the subse2uent notice
which informs the employee of the employer5s decision to dismiss him.
Failure to comply with the re2uirements taints the dismissal with illegality.

)etitioners should thus indemnify Dy for their failure to observe the
re2uirements of due process. Dy is not entitled to reinstatement, bac4wages
-
and attorney5s fees because Dy5s dismissal is for /ust cause but without due
process. <n light of this !ourt5s ruling in Agabon v. National Labor
Relations Commission, the violation of Dy5s right to statutory due process
by petitioners, even if the dismissal was for a /ust cause, warrants the
payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages. This indemnity is
intended not to penaliBe the employer but to vindicate or recogniBe the
employee5s right to statutory due process which was violated by the
employer. !onsidering that both the 3abor "rbiter and the *3'! found
that petitioners already gave Dy )120,000 of their own free will, this amount
should thus constitute the nominal damages due to Dy.

0HERE$ORE, we GRANT the petition. >e A$$IRM 1)&!
MODI$ICATION the Decision of the !ourt of "ppeals promulgated on
30 ay 2003 in !"%&.'. () *o. +2,-, as well as the 'esolution
promulgated on . "ugust 200,. The amount of )120,000 previously given
by petitioners 0ilton 0eavy 12uipment !orporation and )eter 3im to
respondent "nanias ). Dy constitutes the award of nominal damages.
"lthough the amount of )120,000 e=ceeds the )30,000 normally given in
similar cases, the e=cess paid by 0ilton 0eavy 12uipment !orporation and
)eter 3im may be retained by "nanias ). Dy as voluntary and discretionary
gratuity.

SO ORDERED.



ANTONIO T. CARPIO
"ssociate @ustice


0E CONCUR7




RENATO C. CORONA
"ssociate @ustice





ARTURO D. 2RION MARIANO C. DEL
CASTILLO
"ssociate @ustice "ssociate @ustice






.
3OSE P. PERE4
"ssociate @ustice


ATTESTATION
< attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
!ourt5s Division.



ANTONIO T. CARPIO
"ssociate @ustice
!hairperson



CERTI$ICATION
)ursuant to (ection 13, "rticle A<<< of the !onstitution, and the
Division !hairperson5s "ttestation, < certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the !ourt5s Division.



REYNATO S. PUNO
!hief @ustice
J Designated additional member per (pecial ;rder *o. G12.
Cnder 'ule ,- of the 166+ 'ules of !ivil )rocedure.
Rollo, pp. 3,%-2. )enned by "ssociate @ustice ?ienvenido 3. 'eyes with "ssociate
@ustices (alvador @. AaldeB, @r. and Danilo ?. )ine, concurring.
<d. at -,%-.. )enned by "ssociate @ustice ?ienvenido 3. 'eyes with "ssociate @ustices
(alvador @. AaldeB, @r. and Danilo ?. )ine, concurring.
<d. at 3-.
<d. at 60.
)enned by !ommissioner ?ernabe (. ?atuhan with )residing !ommissioner <renea
?. !eniBa and !ommissioner 1dgardo . 1nerlan, concurring.
<d. at 11,%11-.
<d. at 126.
<d. at 13G.
<d. at -,%-..
<d. at 1+%1G.
Labor v. National Labor Relations Commission, &.'. *o. 1103GG, 1, (eptember 166-,
2,G (!'" 1G3.
(ee i!on v. National Labor Relations Commission" &.'. *o. +6--,, 1, December
16G6, 1G0 (!'" -2.
#epsi$Cola %ottling Co. v. NLRC" &.'. *o. 101600, 23 @une 1662, 210 (!'" 2++,
2G..
(ee Nat& v. National Labor Relations Commission, &.'. *o. 122G.., 16 @une 166+,
2+, (!'" 3+6.
&.'. *o. 1-G.63, 1+ *ovember 200,, ,,2 (!'" -+3.
<d. at .1+.
+