RESPONDENT Teodore Gilbert Ang was hired by petitioner SM Development Corp. (SMDC) as its project director since December 2006.
On April 16, 2012, when he reported for work after an approved vacation leave, he was called by petitioner Joann Hizon, SMDC’s head of human resource department, and was made to receive the memorandum with subject Show Cause Notice which contains therein direction for him to explain some accusations. Meantime, he was placed on a 30-day preventive suspension without pay.
On May 17, 2012, respondent informed Hizon that his suspension was over and he will report back to work. Instead, he received a phone call from Hizon that he does not need to report to work because he was already dismissed. Hizon asked for a meeting with him where he was served with a termination letter dated May 15, 2012. He was surprised to learn of an alleged May 7 and 9, 2012 administrative hearing mentioned in the said termination letter because he was never given a notice of said hearings.
The Court of Appeals (CA) held among others, that the notice requirements have not been properly observed. It pointed out that the records of the case was bereft of any showing that a hearing or conference was conducted on May 7 and 9, 2012 to explain respondent’s side.
Did the CA err?
Ruling: No.
Finally, although there was a just cause for respondent’s dismissal, he was not afforded procedural due process. In particular, the records of this case was bereft of any showing that a hearing or conference was conducted on May 7 and 9, 2012. While respondent was given a chance to explain his side and adduce evidence in his defense through his written explanation, he was not afforded the opportunity to confront the witnesses against him through an administrative hearing before he was dismissed.
Following the prevailing jurisprudence on the matter, if the dismissal is based on a just cause, then the non-compliance with procedural due process should not render the termination from employment illegal or ineffectual. Instead, the employer must indemnify the employee in the form of nominal damages.
Therefore, the dismissal of respondent should be upheld, and petitioners cannot be held liable for the payment of either backwages or separation pay. The law and jurisprudence allow the award of nominal damages in favor of an employee in a case where a valid cause for dismissal exists but the employer fails to observe due process in dismissing the employee. Considering all the circumstances surrounding this case, the Court finds the award of nominal damages in the amount of P30,000 to be in order. (SM Development Corp., et al. vs. Teodore Gilbert Ang, G.R. 220434, July 22, 2019).