G.R. No. 149371. April 13, 2005
ABERDEEN COURT, INC., and RICHARD NG, Petitioners, vs. MATEO C. AGUSTIN JR., Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Mateo C. Agustin Jr. was employed as a probationary electrical engineer by petitioner Aberdeen Court, Inc. on September 16, 1996. His employment contract stipulated that management could terminate his services at any time during the probationary period if his performance was unsatisfactory. In January 1997, personnel from Centigrade Industries performed exhaust air balancing readings at Aberdeen’s premises. Petitioners allege Agustin was in charge and negligently signed the contractor’s report without verification, leading to incorrect work. Agustin countered that he merely accompanied the personnel as requested, that the task was for mechanical engineers, and that he signed the report only to acknowledge receipt under his supervisor’s direction.
On January 15, 1997, Agustin was summoned by management. The parties dispute the events: petitioners claim Agustin ignored an explanation meeting and abandoned his job, while Agustin asserts he was summarily informed of his termination and offered separation pay contingent on signing a quitclaim, which he refused. He later filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, but the NLRC reversed, finding the dismissal valid. The Court of Appeals then reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, declaring Agustin constructively dismissed.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Mateo C. Agustin Jr. was illegally dismissed from his probationary employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that Agustin was validly dismissed for a just cause but the dismissal was procedurally defective. The Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ finding of constructive dismissal, as the factual circumstances did not indicate that Agustin was forced to resign or that employment became impossible. On the substantive aspect, the Court upheld the NLRC’s finding that Agustin’s failure to exercise basic prudence and due diligence in overseeing the contractor’s work, by signing a report without any verification, constituted gross negligence. This failure demonstrated he did not meet the reasonable standards for regularization, which is a valid ground for terminating a probationary employee under Article 281 of the Labor Code.
However, petitioners failed to comply with the twin-notice requirement. Agustin was not furnished a written notice stating the grounds for dismissal and given an opportunity to explain. Following the doctrine in Agabon v. NLRC, an employer who dismisses for just cause but violates due process is liable for nominal damages. Thus, while the dismissal was for a just cause, petitioners were ordered to pay Agustin nominal damages of ₱30,000 for procedural infirmity. The petition was partly granted, modifying the appellate court’s decision.