Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Wenphil, Serrano & Agabon

    Uploaded by

    Basmuth
    14 views1 page
    The document discusses the Supreme Court of the Philippines' rulings on an employer's liability for violating an employee's procedural due process rights during termination. It outlines three doctrines: 1) The Wenphil ruling of 1989, which upheld dismissals for valid reasons but required employers to pay penalties for due process violations. 2) The Serrano doctrine of 2000, which declared terminations ineffective if notice requirements were violated but only required back wages as payment. 3) The Agabon doctrine, which abandoned Serrano in favor of Wenphil, upholding dismissals for cause but imposing stiffer penalties on employers to deter due process violations and achieve fairness for both parties.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Wenphil, Serrano & agabon.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document discusses the Supreme Court of the Philippines' rulings on an employer's liability for violating an employee's procedural due process rights during termination. It outlines three doctrines: 1) The Wenphil ruling of 1989, which upheld dismissals for valid reasons but required employers to pay penalties for due process violations. 2) The Serrano doctrine of 2000, which declared terminations ineffective if notice requirements were violated but only required back wages as payment. 3) The Agabon doctrine, which abandoned Serrano in favor of Wenphil, upholding dismissals for cause but imposing stiffer penalties on employers to deter due process violations and achieve fairness for both parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    14 views1 page

    Wenphil, Serrano & Agabon

    Uploaded by

    Basmuth
    The document discusses the Supreme Court of the Philippines' rulings on an employer's liability for violating an employee's procedural due process rights during termination. It outlines three doctrines: 1) The Wenphil ruling of 1989, which upheld dismissals for valid reasons but required employers to pay penalties for due process violations. 2) The Serrano doctrine of 2000, which declared terminations ineffective if notice requirements were violated but only required back wages as payment. 3) The Agabon doctrine, which abandoned Serrano in favor of Wenphil, upholding dismissals for cause but imposing stiffer penalties on employers to deter due process violations and achieve fairness for both parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    What is the ER’s liability for non-compliance with requirements of procedural

    due process?

    By Atty. Golda Benjamin

    History of SC rulings:

    1. Wenphil ruling or Belated Due Process Rule (8 Feb 1989) – where the employer had a valid
    reason to dismiss an employee but did not follow the due process requirement, the dismissal may
    be upheld but the employer will be penalized to pay an indemnity to the employee.
    In this particular case, the ER was required to pay an indemnity of P1,000 to the EE. The
    measure of the award depends on the facts and circumstances of the case, and the gravity of the
    omission committed by the ER

    2. Serrano doctrine (27 Jan 2000) – the violation by the employer of the notice requirement in
    termination for just or authorized causes was not a denial of due process that will nullify the
    termination. However, the dismissal is ineffectual and the employer must pay full backwages
    from the time of termination until it is judicially declared that the dismissal was for a just or
    authorized cause.
    Rationale for change from Wenphil to Serrano: the significant number of cases involving
    dismissals without requisite notices (dismiss now, pay later). The imposition of penalty by way
    of damages for violation of the notice requirement was not serving as a deterrent.

    3. Agabon doctrine

    After carefully analyzing the consequences of the divergent doctrines in the law on employment
    termination, the SC believes that in cases involving dismissals for cause but without observance
    of the twin requirements of notice and hearing, the better rule is to abandon the Serrano doctrine
    and to follow Wenphil by holding that the dismissal was for just cause but imposing sanctions on
    the employer.

    Such sanctions, however, must be stiffer than that imposed in Wenphil. By doing so, this Court
    would be able to achieve a fair result by dispensing justice not just to employees, but to
    employers as well.

    penalty and should depend on the facts of each case, taking into special consideration the gravity
    of the due process violation of the employer.

    You might also like