G.R. No. 173291; February 8, 2012
ROMEO A. GALANG, Petitioner, vs. CITYLAND SHAW TOWER, INC. and VIRGILIO BALDEMOR, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Romeo Galang was absorbed as a janitor by respondent Cityland Shaw Tower, Inc. after his contract with a maintenance agency expired. He alleged a promise of regularization after a six-month probation. On May 21, 2002, he was informed his employment was terminated effective the previous day. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Cityland countered that Galang was a casual employee dismissed for just cause due to gross insubordination, harassment of co-employees, and conduct unbecoming an employee. Specific incidents included causing a flood due to negligence, taking pictures of co-workers after a theft, and verbally insulting his supervisor, Eva Tupas, during a meeting.
The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of Galang, finding illegal dismissal due to Cityland’s failure to substantiate the grounds for dismissal and to observe due process. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision. The CA found that Galang’s acts constituted just cause for dismissal but that Cityland failed to comply with procedural due process. Applying the ruling in Agabon v. NLRC, the CA upheld the dismissal but ordered Cityland to pay Galang nominal damages for the procedural lapse.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in: (1) finding that Galang was dismissed for a just cause; and (2) applying the Agabon doctrine on nominal damages instead of the Serrano doctrine on full backwages for dismissal with just cause but without due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. On the first issue, the Court upheld the finding of just cause for dismissal. The CA correctly relied on substantial evidence, including the sworn statements of supervisor Eva Tupas and other employees detailing Galang’s gross negligence (causing a flood), insubordination, and disrespectful conduct. These acts constituted willful disobedience and serious misconduct under the Labor Code, which are valid grounds for termination. The employer’s burden of proof was sufficiently discharged.
On the second issue, the Court held the CA correctly applied the Agabon doctrine. Galang argued that the earlier Serrano doctrine, which awarded full backwages for dismissal with just cause but without due process, should apply since his complaint was filed before the Agabon ruling. The Court clarified that the NLRC decision did not attain finality as it was appealed to the CA. When the CA rendered its decision, the prevailing doctrine was already Agabon, which abandoned Serrano and held that a dismissal for just cause but without procedural due process only warrants an award of nominal damages, not full backwages. Therefore, the CA committed no error in awarding Galang ₱30,000.00 in nominal damages for the procedural violation while upholding the validity of his dismissal.