8/9/2019 Agabon v NLRC (Puno Dissent) Digest

1/2

AGABON v NLRC (PUNO DISSENT)

Puno advocates a return to the pre!enph"# ru#e $here %a"#ure to &eet the

procedura# due process re'u"re&ent &aes the ent"re d"s&"ssa# "##ea#* Co&"n o+

h"s d"ssent "n Serrano, "t "s stressed that the -d"s&"ss no$, pa. #ater- sche&e "s a

proe&p#o.er po#"c. that $as a/used /. e&p#o.ers %or .ears* 0e a#so sees the"nde&n"t. "&posed "n Serrano, and even &ore so "n Aa/on, as ross#. "nsu1c"ent,

ta"n "nto cons"derat"on the %o##o$"n2

3* That the Const"tut"on "s an ode to soc"a# 4ust"ce, espec"a##. the r"hts o% $orers*

Th"s "s re5ected "n the La/or Code*

6* Courts shou#d "ve &ean"n and su/stance to the r"hts o% $orers* Th"s shou#d

not 4ust re%er to su/stant"ve, /ut a#so procedura# process* !eaen"n the procedure

"s a#so $eaen"n the su/stant"ve r"ht, as "n e+ect, a $eaened procedure &eans

&ore #oopho#es that can /e e7p#o"ted "n order to c"rcu&vent the $orer-s r"hts*

8* The Const"tut"on puts the e&p#o.ee on e'ua# %oot"n $"th the e&p#o.er, "n sp"te

o% the natura# "ne'ua#"t.* 0ence, soc"a# 4ust"ce "n cases /et$een the t$o re%ers to

protect"on %or the $orers "n order to #eve# the p#a."n 9e#d*

:* Pr"or to !enph"#, the Court has #on e7tended const"tut"ona# due process "n #a/or

cases "nvo#v"n pr"vate act"on, "n sp"te o% the B"## o% R"hts trad"t"ona##. /e"n

cons"dered protect"on aa"nst state act"on* The current "nternat"ona# trend "s that

due process adapts to the s"tuat"on "ven the chanes "n the econo&"c order

veer"n to$ards corporat"ons (and the #a/or "ssues that tend to co&e $"th the&),

the #a$ has evo#ved and cont"nues to evo#ve to ensure the cont"nued protect"on o%the $orers*

Thouh the &a4or"t. op"n"on /e#"eves that the app#"cat"on o% due process on "##ea#

d"s&"ssa# cases can open the 5oodates to a/surd c#a"&s, the daner that the.

thouht $ou#d ar"se has not &an"%ested at a##* ;In %act, "ven $hat happened a%ter

Serrano, as noted /.

8/9/2019 Agabon v NLRC (Puno Dissent) Digest

2/2

opportun"t. %or the e&p#o.ees to /e heard (Art* 66 LC a#ons"de the An T"/a.

doctr"ne)* There does not see& to /e a va#"d reason to e7e&pt e&p#o.ers %ro& th"s

dut.* I% an.th"n, an. d"s&"ssa# $"thout due process de/ases hu&an d"n"t., and "t

"s "ncu&/ent upon the e&p#o.er to conduct a %or&a# "nvest"at"on and "n%or& the

e&p#o.ee o% the chares aa"nst h"&* I% a cr"&"na# "s "ven th"s opportun"t., $hat

&ore an e&p#o.ee

@* G"ven a## th"s, the Const"tut"on recon"es secur"t. o% tenure as one o% the h"hest

r"hts o% e&p#o.ees* A## other r"hts are &ean"n#ess "% the person /eco&es

une&p#o.ed* In a prev"ous case, the court stressed that e&p#o.ees shou#d /e

protected aa"nst an. ar/"trar. depr"vat"on o% h"s 4o/ such that even $hen the

e&p#o.ee $as at %au#t, "% a pena#t. #ess severe $ou#d su1ce, then the #esser pena#t.

shou#d /e "&posed*

* !h. !orers need $or &ore than an.th"n e#se* It "s a de9n"n %eature o%

hu&an e7"stence as "t "s $hat prov"des one-s needs* Fou tae &. #"%e $hen .ou do

tae the &eans $here/. I #"ve*

G"ven a## these cons"derat"ons, no&"na# da&aes are ross#. "nsu1c"ent and "ve

undue advantae to e&p#o.ers* The Court cannot a##o$ the e&p#o.ers to

&ar"na#"e the r"ht o% the $orer to due process %or a %e$ pesos $"thout &oc"n

the e7tens"ve protect"on accorded /. the Const"tut"on, espec"a##. $hen "t "nvo#ves

secur"t. o% tenure, $h"ch "s /e.ond &onetar. est"&at"on* Aa/on, $hen "t set a

p"ttance o% no&"na# da&aes %or v"o#at"on o% due process, nu##"9es our precepts on

soc"a# 4ust"ce and the protect"on o% #a/or*

An e&p#o.ee &a. not have a torrens t"t#e to h"s 4o/ /ut "t "s not too &uch to re'u"rethat /e%ore he "s d"s&"ssed /. h"s e&p#o.er, he shou#d /e "ven a s"&p#e not"ce o%

the cause o% h"s d"s&"ssa# and a su&&ar. hear"n to present h"s s"de* A## our

const"tut"ona# and statutor. precepts on soc"a# 4ust"ce and the protect"on o% #a/or

$"## o to nauht "% $e perpetuate our ru#"n that a d"s&"ssa# $"thout the re'u"red

pr"or not"ce "s va#"d and "% $e 4ust pena#"e $"th the pa.&ent o% penn"es v"o#at"ons o%

the e&p#o.ee-s r"ht to due process*