AGULLANO V. CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING (LABOR)

The Constitution, statutes, and jurisprudence uniformly mandate that NO WORKER SHALL BE DISMISSED EXCEPT FOR A JUST OR VALID CAUSE PROVIDED BY LAW, AND ONLY AFTER DUE PROCESS IS PROPERLY OBSERVED. In recent decisions, the SC said that dismissals have two facets: (1) the legality of the act of dismissal, which constitutes substantive due process; and (2) the legality of the manner of dismissal, which constitutes procedural due process.

Though petitioner's habitual unexplained absences and tardiness constitute habitual and gross neglect of duties in compliance with the first facet of a valid dismissal (just cause), on the second requisite, i.e., procedural due process, the SC found employer's compliance with the twin-notice requirement sadly wanting and inadequate.

To reiterate, under the twin-notice rule, the employees must be given two (2) notices before employment could be terminated: (1) a first notice containing the specific causes or grounds for termination against them and a directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their written explanation within a reasonable period; and (2) a second notice to communicate to the employees that grounds have been established to justify the severance of their employment.

The dismissal from employment was attended by a violation by the employer of procedural due process.

Where the dismissal is for a just cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal or render it illegal or ineffectuall. The employer is to indemnify in the form of NOMINAL DAMAGES the employee for violations of his statutory rights and the indemnity to be imposed should be stiffer TO DISCOURAGE THE ABHORRENT PRACTICE OF "DISMISS NOW, PAY LATER.