REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. JENNIFER B. CAGANDAHAN, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No.

166676, September 12, 2008] QUISUMBING, J.: FACTS: JC filed a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate before the RTC, alleging that she was born on January 13, 1981 and was registered as a female in the Certificate of Live Birth but while growing up, she developed secondary male characteristics and was diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a condition where persons thus afflicted possess both male and female characteristics. She further alleged that she was diagnosed to have clitoral hyperthropy in her early years and at age six, underwent an ultrasound where it was discovered that she has small ovaries. At age thirteen, tests revealed that her ovarian structures had minimized, she has stopped growing and she has no breast or menstrual development. She then alleged that for all interests and appearances as well as in mind and emotion, she has become a male person. Thus, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that her gender be changed from female to male and her first name be changed from Jennifer to Jeff. The testimony of Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital. Dr. Sionzon issued a medical certificate stating that respondent's condition is known as CAH. He explained that genetically respondent is female but because her body secretes male hormones, her female organs did not develop normally and she has two sex organs - female and male. He testified that this condition is very rare, that respondent's uterus is not fully developed because of lack of female hormones, and that she has no monthly period. He further testified that respondent's condition is permanent and recommended the change of gender because respondent has made up her mind, adjusted to her chosen role as male, and the gender change would be advantageous to her. TC granted the change of her name from Jennifer to Jeff and her gender from female to male. OSG contended that the petition was fatally defective for non-inclusion of the local civil registrar as indispensable party and for non compliance of the Rules of Court and that it failed to state that respondent is a bona fide resident of the province where the petition was filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such filing as mandated under Section 2(b), Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. OSG argues that Rule 108 does not allow change of sex or gender in the birth certificate and respondent's claimed medical condition known as CAH does not make her a male. ISSUE: Whether the trial court erred in ordering the correction of entries in the birth certificate of respondent to change her sex or gender, from female to male, on the ground of her medical condition known as CAH, and her name from "Jennifer" to "Jeff," under Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court. RULING: NO; The determination of a person's sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal issue and the court must look to the statutes. In this connection, Article 412 of the Civil Code provides that no entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order. This provision was amended by Republic Act No. 9048 in so far as clerical or typographical errors are involved. The correction or change of such matters can now be made through administrative proceedings and without the need for a judicial order. In effect, Rep. Act No. 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the correction of such errors. Rule 108 now applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register. Under Rep. Act No. 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex is not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a substantial change for which the applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are those provided in Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil Code which are Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil register and those that shall be entered in the civil register: such as (1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal separations; (5) annulments of marriage; (6) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (7) legitimations; (8) adoptions; (9) acknowledgments of natural children; (10) naturalization; (11) loss, or (12) recovery of citizenship; (13) civil interdiction; (14) judicial determination of filiation; (15) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (16) changes of name. Respondent undisputedly has CAH. This condition causes the early or "inappropriate" appearance of male characteristics. A person, like respondent, with this condition produces too much androgen, a male

hormone. CAH is one of many conditions that involve intersex anatomy. Intersexuality "is the state of a living thing of a gonochoristic species whose sex chromosomes, genitalia, and/or secondary sex characteristics are determined to be neither exclusively male nor female. An organism with intersex may have biological characteristics of both male and female sexes." In the instant case, if JC would be determined as female, then there is no basis for a change in the birth certificate entry for gender. But if based on medical testimony and scientific development showing the respondent to be other than female, then a change in the subject's birth certificate entry is in order. Respondent here has simply let nature take its course and has not taken unnatural steps to arrest or interfere with what he was born with. And accordingly, he has already ordered his life to that of a male. Respondent could have undergone treatment and taken steps, like taking lifelong medication, to force his body into the categorical mold of a female but he did not. He chose not to do so. Nature has instead taken its due course in respondent's development to reveal more fully his male characteristics. Respondent is the one who has to live with his intersex anatomy. To him belongs the human right to the pursuit of happiness and of health and in the absence of evidence to show that classifying respondent as a male will harm other members of society who are equally entitled to protection under the law, the Court affirms as valid and justified the respondent's position and his personal judgment of being a male. As for respondent's change of name under Rule 103, this Court has held that a change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the consequences that will follow. The trial court's grant of respondent's change of name from Jennifer to Jeff implies a change of a feminine name to a masculine name. Considering the consequence that respondent's change of name merely recognizes his preferred gender, we find merit in respondent's change of name. Such a change will conform with the change of the entry in his birth certificate from female to male. BPI vs. BPI EMPLOYEES UNION-DAVAO CHAPTER-FEDERATION OF UNIONS IN BPI UNIBANK (PR) G.R. No. 164301 August 10, 2010 LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: FACTS: BSP and SEC approved the Articles of Merger between BPI and Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC).Pursuant to the Article and Plan of Merger, all the assets and liabilities of FEBTC were transferred to and absorbed by BPI as the surviving corporation. FEBTC employees, including those in its different branches across the country, were hired by BPI as its own employees, with their status and tenure recognized and salaries and benefits maintained. PR is the exclusive bargaining agent of BPI's rank and file employees in Davao City. The former FEBTC rank-and-file employees in Davao City did not belong to any labor union at the time of the merger. Prior to the effectivity of the merger, PR invited said FEBTC employees to a meeting regarding the Union Shop Clause (Article II, Section 2) of the existing CBA between BPI and PR. The parties both advert to certain provisions of the existing CBA, which are quoted below: Section 2. Union Shop - New employees falling within the bargaining unit as defined in Article I of this Agreement, who may hereafter be regularly employed by the Bank shall, within thirty (30) days after they become regular employees, join the Union as a condition of their continued employment. It is understood that membership in good standing in the Union is a condition of their continued employment with the Bank. After the meeting called by the Union, some of the former FEBTC employees joined the Union, while others refused. Later, however, some of those who initially joined retracted their membership. PR sent notices to the former FEBTC employees who refused to join, as well as those who retracted their membership, and called them to a hearing regarding the matter. When these former FEBTC employees refused to attend the hearing, the president of the Union requested BPI to implement the Union Shop Clause of the CBA and to terminate their employment pursuant thereto. When brought to the Grievance Committee, the issue remained unresolved. The voluntary arbitrator later ruled in favor of BPIs interpretation that the former FEBTC employees were not covered by the Union Security Clause of the CBA since they are not new employees who were hired and subsequently regularized, but were absorbed employees. The Voluntary Arbitrator concluded that the former FEBTC employees could not be compelled to join the Union, as it was their constitutional right to join or not to join any organization.

This Court agrees with the voluntary arbitrator that the ABSORBED employees are distinct and different from NEW employees BUT only in so far as their employment service is concerned. The distinction ends there. In the case at bar, the absorbed employees' length of service from its former employer is tacked with their employment with BPI. Otherwise stated, the absorbed employees service is continuous and there is no gap in their service record. The Court is persuaded that the similarities of "new" and "absorbed" employees far outweighs thedistinction between them. The similarities lies on the following, to wit: (a) they have a new employer; (b) new working conditions; (c) new terms of employment and; (d) new company policy to follow. As such, they should be considered as "new" employees for purposes of applying the provisions of the CBA regarding the "union-shop" clause.To rule otherwise would definitely result to a very awkward and unfair situation wherein the "absorbed" employees shall be in a different if not, better situation than the existing BPI employees. The existing BPI employees by virtue of the "union-shop" clause are required to pay the monthly union dues, remain as members in good standing of the union otherwise, they shall be terminated from the company, and other union-related obligations. On the other hand, the "absorbed" employees shall enjoy the "fruits of labor" of the petitioner-union and its members for nothing in exchange. Certainly, this would disturb industrial peace in the company which is the paramount reason for the existence of the CBA and the union. In the case of Manila Mandarin Employees Union vs. NLRC, the Court held that a valid form of union security, and such a provision in a collective bargaining agreement is not a restriction of the right of freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution. A closed-shop agreement is an agreement whereby an employer binds himself to hire only members of the contracting union who must continue to remain members in good standing to keep their jobs. It is "THE MOST PRIZED ACHIEVEMENT OF UNIONISM." IT ADDS MEMBERSHIP AND COMPULSORY DUES. By holding out to loyal members a promise of employment in the closed-shop, it wields group solidarity." ISSUE: May a corporation invoke its merger with another corporation as a valid ground to exempt its "absorbed employees" from the coverage of a union shop clause contained in its existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with its own certified labor union? RULING: Section 2, Article II of the CBA is silent as to how one becomes a "regular employee" of the BPI for the first time. There is nothing in the said provision which requires that a "new" regular employee first undergo a temporary or probationary status before being deemed as such under the union shop clause of the CBA. In the case of Liberty Flour Mills Employees v. Liberty Flour Mills, Inc, the Court held that, It is the policy of the State to promote unionism to enable the workers to negotiate with management on the same level and with more persuasiveness than if they were to individually and independently bargain for the improvement of their respective conditions. To this end, the Constitution guarantees to them the rights "to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations and peaceful concerted actions including the right to strike in accordance with law." There is no question that these purposes could be thwarted if every worker were to choose to go his own separate way instead of joining his co-employees in planning collective action and presenting a united front when they sit down to bargain with their employers. All employees in the bargaining unit covered by a Union Shop Clause in their CBA with management are subject to its terms. However, under law and jurisprudence, the following kinds of employees are exempted from its coverage, namely, employees who at the time the union shop agreement takes effect are bona fide members of a religious organization which prohibits its members from joining labor unions on religious grounds; employees already in the service and already members of a union other than the majority at the time the union shop agreement took effect ; confidential employees who are excluded from the rank and file bargaining unit; and employees excluded from the union shop by express terms of the agreement. This condition is a valid restriction of the freedom or right not to join any labor organization because it is in favor of unionism. Indeed, the situation of the former FEBTC employees in this case clearly does not fall within the first three exceptions to the application of the Union Shop Clause discussed earlier. No allegation or evidence of religious exemption or prior membership in another union or engagement as a confidential employee was presented by both parties. The sole category therefore in which petitioner may prove its claim is the fourth recognized exception or whether the former FEBTC employees are excluded by the express terms of the existing CBA between petitioner and respondent.

Absorbed FEBTC Employees are neither Assets nor Liabilities. In legal parlance, however, human beings are never embraced in the term "assets and liabilities." Moreover, BPI's absorption of former FEBTC employees was neither by operation of law nor by legal consequence of contract. There was no government regulation or law that compelled the merger of the two banks or the absorption of the employees of the dissolved corporation by the surviving corporation. Furthermore, this Court believes that it is contrary to public policy to declare the former FEBTC employees as forming part of the assets or liabilities of FEBTC that were transferred and absorbed by BPI in the Articles of Merger. Assets and liabilities, in this instance, should be deemed to refer only to property rights and obligations of FEBTC and do not include the employment contracts of its personnel. Certainly, if BPI as an employer had the right to choose who to retain among FEBTC's employees, FEBTC employees had the concomitant right to choose not to be absorbed by BPI. Certainly nothing prevented the FEBTC's employees from resigning or retiring and seeking employment elsewhere instead of going along with the proposed absorption. Employment is a personal consensual contract and absorption by BPI of a former FEBTC employee without the consent of the employee is in violation of an individual's freedom to contract. It would have been a different matter if there was an express provision in the articles of merger that as a condition for the merger, BPI was being required to assume all the employment contracts of all existing FEBTC employees with the conformity of the employees Several cases have involved the situation where as a result of mergers, consolidations, or shutdowns, one group of employees, who had accumulated seniority at one plant or for one employer, finds that their jobs have been discontinued except to the extent that they are offered employment at the place or by the employer where the work is to be carried on in the future. Such cases have involved the question whether such transferring employees should be entitled to carry with them their accumulated seniority or whether they are to be compelled to start over at the bottom of the seniority list in the "new" job. It has been recognized in some cases that the accumulated seniority does not survive and cannot be transferred to the "new" job. Indeed, from the tenor of local and foreign authorities, in voluntary mergers, absorption of the dissolved corporation's employees or the recognition of the absorbed employees' service with their previous employer may be demanded from the surviving corporation if required by provision of law or contract. Justice Brion takes the position that because the surviving corporation continues the personality of the dissolved corporation and acquires all the latter's rights and obligations, it is duty-bound to absorb the dissolved corporation's employees, even in the absence of a stipulation in the plan of merger. The surviving corporation too is duty-bound to protect the rights of its own employees who may be affected by the merger in terms of seniority and other conditions of their employment due to the merger. Thus, we are not convinced that in the absence of a stipulation in the merger plan the surviving corporation was compelled, or may be judicially compelled, to absorb all employees under the same terms and conditions obtaining in the dissolved corporation as the surviving corporation should also take into consideration the state of its business and its obligations to its own employees, and to their certified collective bargaining agent or labor union. Even assuming we accept Justice Brion's theory that in a merger situation the surviving corporation should be compelled to absorb the dissolved corporation's employees as a legal consequence of the merger and as a social justice consideration, it bears to emphasize his dissent also recognizes that the employee may choose to end his employment at any time by voluntarily resigning. For the employee to be "absorbed" by BPI, it requires the employees' implied or express consent. It is because of this human element in employment contracts and the personal, consensual nature thereof that we cannot agree that, in a merger situation, employment contracts are automatically transferable from one entity to another in the same manner that a contract pertaining to purely proprietary rights - such as a promissory note or a deed of sale of property - is perfectly and automatically transferable to the surviving corporation. Once an FEBTC employee is absorbed, there are presumably changes in his condition of employment even if his previous tenure and salary rate is recognized by BPI. It is reasonable to assume that BPI would have different rules and regulations and company practices than FEBTC and it is incumbent upon the former FEBTC employees to obey these new rules and adapt to their new environment. Likewise, with respect to FEBTC employees that BPI chose to employ and who also chose to be absorbed, then due to BPI's blanket

assumption of liabilities and obligations under the articles of merger, BPI was bound to respect the years of service of these FEBTC employees and to pay the same, or commensurate salaries and other benefits that these employees previously enjoyed with FEBTC. As the Union likewise pointed out in its pleadings, there were benefits under the CBA that the former FEBTC employees did not enjoy with their previous employer . As BPI employees, they will enjoy all these CBA benefits upon their "absorption." Thus, although in a sense BPI is continuing FEBTC's employment of these absorbed employees, BPI's employment of these absorbed employees was not under exactly the same terms and conditions as stated in the latter's employment contracts with FEBTC. This further strengthens the view that BPI and the former FEBTC employees voluntarily contracted with each other for their employment in the surviving corporation. The Union Shop Clause in the CBA simply states that "new employees" who during the effectivity of the CBA "may be regularly employed" by the Bank must join the union within thirty (30) days from their regularization. There is nothing in the said clause that limits its application to only new employees who possess non-regular status, meaning probationary status, at the start of their employment. Petitioner likewise failed to point to any provision in the CBA expressly excluding from the Union Shop Clause new employees who are "absorbed" as regular employees from the beginning of their employment. What is indubitable from the Union Shop Clause is that upon the effectivity of the CBA, petitioner's new regular employees (regardless of the manner by which they became employees of BPI) are required to join the Union as a condition of their continued employment. The dissenting opinion of Justice Brion dovetails with Justice Carpio's view only in their restrictive interpretation of who are "new employees" under the CBA. To our dissenting colleagues, the phrase "new employees" (who are covered by the union shop clause) should only include new employees who were hired as probationary during the life of the CBA and were later granted regular status. They propose that the former FEBTC employees who were deemed regular employees from the beginning of their employment with BPI should be treated as a special class of employees and be excluded from the union shop clause. Justice Brion himself points out that there is no clear, categorical definition of "new employee" in the CBA. In other words, the term "new employee" as used in the union shop clause is used broadly without any qualification or distinction. However, the Court should not uphold an interpretation of the term "new employee" based on the general and extraneous provisions of the Corporation Code on merger that would defeat, rather than fulfill, the purpose of the union shop clause. To reiterate, the provision of the Article 248(e) of the Labor Code in point mandates that nothing in the said Code or any other law should stop the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition of employment. However, in law or even under the express terms of the CBA, there is no special class of employees called "absorbed employees." In order for the Court to apply or not apply the Union Shop Clause, we can only classify the former FEBTC employees as either "old" or "new." If they are not "old" employees, they are necessarily "new" employees. If they are new employees, the Union Shop Clause did not distinguish between new employees who are non-regular at their hiring but who subsequently become regular and new employees who are "absorbed" as regular and permanent from the beginning of their employment. The Union Shop Clause did not so distinguish, and so neither must we. The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that there are no substantial differences between a newly hired non-regular employee who was regularized weeks or months after his hiring and a new employee who was absorbed from another bank as a regular employee pursuant to a merger, for purposes of applying the Union Shop Clause. Both employees were hired/employed only after the CBA was signed. At the time they are being required to join the Union, they are both already regular rank and file employees of BPI. They belong to the same bargaining unit being represented by the Union. They both enjoy benefits that the Union was able to secure for them under the CBA. When they both entered the employ of BPI, the CBA and the Union Shop Clause therein were already in effect and neither of them had the opportunity to express their preference for unionism or not. We see no cogent reason why the Union Shop Clause should not be applied equally to these two types of new employees, for they are undeniably similarly situated. The effect or consequence of BPI's so-called "absorption" of former FEBTC employees should be limited to what they actually agreed to, i.e. recognition of the FEBTC employees' years of service, salary rate and

other benefits with their previous employer. The effect should not be stretched so far as to exempt former FEBTC employees from the existing CBA terms, company policies and rules which apply to employees similarly situated. If the Union Shop Clause is valid as to other new regular BPI employees, there is no reason why the same clause would be a violation of the "absorbed" employees' freedom of association. There is nothing in the Labor Code and other applicable laws or the CBA provision at issue that requires that a new employee has to be of probationary or non-regular status at the beginning of the employment relationship. An employer may confer upon a new employee the status of regular employment even at the onset of his engagement. Moreover, no law prohibits an employer from voluntarily recognizing the length of service of a new employee with a previous employer in relation to computation of benefits or seniority but it should not unduly be interpreted to exclude them from the coverage of the CBA which is a binding contractual obligation of the employer and employees. Right of an Employee not to Join a Union is not Absolute and Must Give Way to the Collective Good of All Members of the Bargaining Unit. This Court had categorically held in the case of Freeman Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., G.R. No. L-16561, Jan. 28, 1961, that the closed-shop proviso of a collective bargaining agreement entered into between an employer and a duly authorized labor union is applicable not only to the employees or laborers that are employed after the collective bargaining agreement had been entered into but also to old employees who are not members of any labor union at the time the said collective bargaining agreement was entered into. In other words, if an employee or laborer is already a member of a labor union different from the union that entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the employer providing for a closed-shop, said employee or worker cannot be obliged to become a member of that union which had entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the employer as a condition for his continued employment. The right to refrain from joining labor organizations recognized by Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act is, however, limited. The legal protection granted to such right to refrain from joining is withdrawn by operation of law, where a labor union and an employer have agreed on a closed shop, by virtue of which the employer may employ only member of the collective bargaining union, and the employees must continue to be members of the union for the duration of the contract in order to keep their jobs. Thus Section 4 (a) (4) of the Industrial Peace Act, before its amendment by Republic Act No. 3350, provides that although it would be an unfair labor practice for an employer "to discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization" the employer is, however, not precluded "from making an agreement with a labor organization to require as a condition of employment membership therein, if such labor organization is the representative of the employees." By virtue, therefore, of a closed shop agreement, before the enactment of Republic Act No. 3350, if any person, regardless of his religious beliefs, wishes to be employed or to keep his employment, he must become a member of the collective bargaining union. Hence, the right of said employee not to join the labor union is curtailed and withdrawn. Time and again, this Court has ruled that the individual employee's right not to join a union may be validly restricted by a union security clause in a CBA 49cra1aw and such union security clause is not a violation of the employee's constitutional right to freedom of association. 50cra1aw It is unsurprising that significant provisions on labor protection of the 1987 Constitution are found in Article XIII on Social Justice. The constitutional guarantee given the right to form unions 51cra1aw and the State policy to promote unionism52cra1aw have social justice considerations. In People's Industrial and Commercial Employees and Workers Organization v. People's Industrial and Commercial Corporation,53cra1aw we recognized that "[l]abor, being the weaker in economic power and resources than capital, deserve protection that is actually substantial and material." The rationale for upholding the validity of union shop clauses in a CBA, even if they impinge upon the individual employee's right or freedom of association, is not to protect the union for the union's sake. Laws and jurisprudence promote unionism and afford certain protections to the certified bargaining agent in a unionized company because a strong and effective union presumably benefits all employees in the bargaining unit since such a union would be in a better position to demand improved benefits and conditions of work from the employer. This is the rationale behind the State policy to promote unionism

declared in the Constitution, which was elucidated in the above-cited case of Liberty Flour Mills Employees v. Liberty Flour Mills, Inc.54cra1aw In the case at bar, since the former FEBTC employees are deemed covered by the Union Shop Clause, they are required to join the certified bargaining agent, which supposedly has gathered the support of the majority of workers within the bargaining unit in the appropriate certification proceeding. Their joining the certified union would, in fact, be in the best interests of the former FEBTC employees for it unites their interests with the majority of employees in the bargaining unit. It encourages employee solidarity and affords sufficient protection to the majority status of the union during the life of the CBA which are the precisely the objectives of union security clauses, such as the Union Shop Clause involved herein. We are indeed not being called to balance the interests of individual employees as against the State policy of promoting unionism, since the employees, who were parties in the court below, no longer contested the adverse Court of Appeals' decision. Nonetheless, settled jurisprudence has already swung the balance in favor of unionism, in recognition that ultimately the individual employee will be benefited by that policy. In the hierarchy of constitutional values, this Court has repeatedly held that the right to abstain from joining a labor organization is subordinate to the policy of encouraging unionism as an instrument of social justice. Also in the dissenting opinion of Justice Carpio, he maintains that one of the dire consequences to the former FEBTC employees who refuse to join the union is the forfeiture of their retirement benefits. This is clearly not the case precisely because BPI expressly recognized under the merger the length of service of the absorbed employees with FEBTC. Should some refuse to become members of the union, they may still opt to retire if they are qualified under the law, the applicable retirement plan, or the CBA, based on their combined length of service with FEBTC and BPI. Certainly, there is nothing in the union shop clause that should be read as to curtail an employee's eligibility to apply for retirement if qualified under the law, the existing retirement plan, or the CBA as the case may be. In sum, this Court finds it reasonable and just to conclude that the Union Shop Clause of the CBA covers the former FEBTC employees who were hired/employed by BPI during the effectivity of the CBA in a manner which petitioner describes as "absorption." A contrary appreciation of the facts of this case would, undoubtedly, lead to an inequitable and very volatile labor situation which this Court has consistently ruled against. In the case of former FEBTC employees who initially joined the union but later withdrew their membership, there is even greater reason for the union to request their dismissal from the employer since the CBA also contained a Maintenance of Membership Clause. A final point in relation to procedural due process, the Court is not unmindful that the former FEBTC employees' refusal to join the union and BPI's refusal to enforce the Union Shop Clause in this instance may have been based on the honest belief that the former FEBTC employees were not covered by said clause. In the interest of fairness, we believe the former FEBTC employees should be given a fresh thirty (30) days from notice of finality of this decision to join the union before the union demands BPI to terminate their employment under the Union Shop Clause, assuming said clause has been carried over in the present CBA and there has been no material change in the situation of the parties. JENNY M. AGABON and VIRGILIO C. AGABON VS. NLRC & RIVIERA HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. and VICENTE ANGELES G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004; YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: FACTS: RHI is engaged in the business of selling and installing ornamental and construction materials. It employed Virgilio and Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice installers on January 2, 1992 until February 23, 1999 when they were dismissed for abandonment of work. They filed an illegal dismissal complaint wherein the Labor Arbiter declared their dismissal to be illegal. The NLRC reversed the LA because it found that pets. had abandoned their work and were not entitled to backwages and separation pay. CA affirmed the ruling of the NLRC. Petitioners assert that they were dismissed because the private respondent refused to give them assignments unless they agreed to work on a pakyaw basis when they reported for duty on February 23, 1999. They did not agree on this arrangement because it would mean losing benefits as Social Security System (SSS) members. Petitioners also claim that private respondent did not comply with the twin requirements of notice and hearing. RHI, on the other hand, maintained that

petitioners were not dismissed but had abandoned their work. In fact, they sent two letters to the last known addresses of the petitioners advising them to report for work. PRs manager even talked to petitioner Virgilio Agabon by telephone to tell him about the new assignment at Pacific Plaza Towers involving 40,000 square meters of cornice installation work. However, petitioners did not report for work because they had subcontracted to perform installation work for another company. Petitioners also demanded for an increase in their wage to P280.00 per day. When this was not granted, petitioners stopped reporting for work and filed the illegal dismissal case. ISSUE: Whether petitioners were illegally dismissed. RULING: To dismiss an employee, the law requires not only the existence of a just and valid cause but also enjoins the employer to give the employee the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. Article 282 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes for termination by the employer: (a) serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or the latters representative in connection with the employees work; (b) gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; (c) fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or his duly authorized representative; (d) commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and (e) other causes analogous to the foregoing. Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. It is a form of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the employer. For a valid finding of abandonment, these two factors should be present: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship, with the second as the more determinative factor which is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the employees has no more intention to work. The intent to discontinue the employment must be shown by clear proof that it was deliberate and unjustified. In February 1999, petitioners were frequently absent having subcontracted for an installation work for another company. Subcontracting for another company clearly showed the intention to sever the employer-employee relationship with PR . This was not the first time they did this. In January 1996, they did not report for work because they were working for another company. Private respondent at that time warned petitioners that they would be dismissed if this happened again. Petitioners disregarded the warning and exhibited a clear intention to sever their employer-employee relationship. The record of an employee is a relevant consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out to him. The law imposes many obligations on the employer such as providing just compensation to workers, observance of the procedural requirements of notice and hearing in the termination of employment. On the other hand, the law also recognizes the right of the employer to expect from its workers not only good performance, adequate work and diligence, but also good conduct and loyalty. The employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such persons whose continuance in the service will patently be inimical to his interests. Standards of due process: requirements of notice. In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed: I. For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Code:

(a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side; (b) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the employee so desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him; and (c) A written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination.

In case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be served on the employees last known address. Dismissals based on just causes contemplate acts or omissions attributable to the employee while dismissals based on authorized causes involve grounds under the Labor Code which allow the employer to terminate employees . A termination for an authorized cause requires payment of separation pay. When the termination of employment is declared illegal, reinstatement and full backwages are mandated under Article 279. If reinstatement is no longer possible where the dismissal was unjust, separation pay may be granted. Procedurally, (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282, the employer must give the employee two written notices and a hearing or opportunity to be heard if requested by the employee before terminating the employment: a notice specifying the grounds for which dismissal is sought a hearing or an opportunity to be heard and after hearing or opportunity to be heard, a notice of the decision to dismiss; and (2) if the dismissal is based on authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284, the employer must give the employee and the Department of Labor and Employment written notices 30 days prior to the effectivity of his separation. From the foregoing rules four possible situations may be derived: (1) the dismissal is for a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code, for an authorized cause under Article 283, or for health reasons under Article 284, and due process was observed; (2) the dismissal is without just or authorized cause but due process was observed; (3) the dismissal is without just or authorized cause and there was no due process; and (4) the dismissal is for just or authorized cause but due process was not observed. In the first situation, the dismissal is undoubtedly valid and the employer will not suffer any liability. In the second and third situations where the dismissals are illegal, Article 279 mandates that the employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time the compensation was not paid up to the time of actual reinstatement. In the fourth situation, the dismissal should be upheld. While the procedural infirmity cannot be cured, it should not invalidate the dismissal. However, the employer should be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process . The present case squarely falls under the fourth situation. The dismissal should be upheld because it was established that the petitioners abandoned their jobs to work for another company. Private respondent, however, did not follow the notice requirements and instead argued that sending notices to the last known addresses would have been useless because they did not reside there anymore. Unfortunately for the private respondent, this is not a valid excuse because the law mandates the twin notice requirements to the employees last known address. Thus, it should be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process . The rule thus evolved: 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. This became known as the WENPHIL or BELATED DUE PROCESS RULE. On January 27, 2000, in Serrano, the rule on the extent of the sanction was changed. We held that 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. The rationale for the re-examination of the Wenphil doctrine in Serrano was the significant number of cases involving dismissals without requisite notices. We concluded that the imposition of penalty by way of damages for violation of the notice requirement was not serving as a deterrent. Hence, we now required payment of full backwages from the time of dismissal until the time the Court finds the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. Serrano was confronting the practice of employers to dismiss now and pay later by imposing full backwages. This means that the termination is illegal only if it is not for any of the justified or authorized causes provided by law. Payment of backwages and other benefits, including reinstatement, is justified only if the employee was unjustly dismissed. The Due Process Clause in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution embodies a system of rights based on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our entire history. Due process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just. It is a constitutional restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government provided by the Bill of Rights.

Due process under the Labor Code, like Constitutional due process, has two aspects: substantive, i.e., the valid and authorized causes of employment termination under the Labor Code; and procedural, i.e., the manner of dismissal. Procedural due process requirements for dismissal are found in the Implementing Rules of P.D. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines in Book VI, Rule I, Sec. 2, as amended by Department Order Nos. 9 and 10. Breaches of these due process requirements violate the Labor Code. Therefore statutory due process should be differentiated from failure to comply with constitutional due process.

Constitutional due process protects the individual from the government and assures him of his rights in criminal, civil or administrative proceedings; while statutory due process found in the Labor Code and Implementing Rules protects employees from being unjustly terminated without just cause after notice and hearing. After carefully analyzing the consequences of the divergent doctrines in the law on employment termination, we believe 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. Certainly, an employer should not be compelled to pay employees for work not actually performed and in fact abandoned. The employer should not be compelled to continue employing a person who is admittedly guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance and whose continued employment is patently inimical to the employer. The law protecting the rights of the laborer authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer.[33] It must be stressed that in the present case, the petitioners committed a grave offense, i.e., abandonment, which, if the requirements of due process were complied with, would undoubtedly result in a valid dismissal. The violation of the petitioners right to statutory due process by the private respondent warrants the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages. The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances. In the case at bar, if PR indeed paid petitioners holiday pay and service incentive leave pay, it could have easily presented documentary proofs of such monetary benefits to disprove the claims of the petitioners. But it did not, except with respect to the 13 th month pay wherein it presented cash vouchers showing payments of the benefit in the years disputed. Allegations by PR that it does not operate during holidays and that it allows its employees 10 days leave with pay, other than being self-serving, do not constitute proof of payment. Consequently, it failed to discharge the onus probandi thereby making it liable for such claims to the petitioners.