G.R. No. 192011 , June 30, 2014
LIBCAP MARKETING CORP., JOHANNA J. CELIZ, and MA. LUCIA G. MONDRAGON, Petitioners, vs. LANNY JEAN B. BAQUIAL, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Libcap Marketing Corporation employed respondent Lanny Jean B. Baquial as an accounting clerk. An audit revealed that respondent double-reported a single bank deposit of ₱1,437.00 made on April 2, 2001, to cover sales for two different days, indicating a failure to deposit the daily collection for one day. Petitioners required respondent to explain in writing, which she did, claiming a bank error. Petitioners verified with the bank and found only one deposit was made. Respondent was then summoned to attend administrative investigations at Libcap’s Iloilo office, but she failed to attend due to lack of financial resources and having recently given birth. After her written explanation, she was terminated effective August 12, 2003, for dishonesty, embezzlement, and inefficiency. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled that while there was just cause for dismissal, the termination was ineffectual due to denial of procedural due process, as requiring her to attend hearings in Iloilo City deprived her of a fair opportunity to be heard. The Labor Arbiter awarded backwages based on the Serrano doctrine. The NLRC affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals modified the ruling, deleting the backwages and instead awarding nominal damages of ₱100,000.00, applying the Agabon doctrine, and noting respondent worked beyond scheduled hours without overtime pay.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioners complied with the procedural due process requirement in dismissing respondent.
2. Whether the award of ₱100,000.00 as nominal damages was proper.

RULING

1. No, petitioners did not comply with procedural due process. The Court upheld the findings of the labor tribunals and the Court of Appeals that petitioners failed to afford respondent a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Requiring her to attend investigations in Iloilo City, despite her limited financial resources and recent childbirth, was callous and effectively deprived her of the chance to confront evidence and rebut charges. While a face-to-face hearing is not always required, the employer must provide a reasonable opportunity to defend oneself, which was not done here. Thus, the dismissal, though for a just cause (dishonesty/embezzlement), was procedurally defective.
2. Yes, the award of ₱100,000.00 as nominal damages was proper. The Court affirmed the award, noting that nominal damages are granted when a valid cause for dismissal exists but due process is not observed. The amount of ₱100,000.00 was justified because respondent was required to work beyond her scheduled hours without overtime pay from her hiring in 1999 until her termination in 2003—a period of four years. This constituted an equitable consideration beyond the standard nominal damages, recognizing the additional hardship imposed on her. The Court distinguished this from cases where only procedural due process was violated, emphasizing the combination of procedural violation and unpaid overtime work warranted a higher award.