Galang vs. Cityland Shaw Tower, Inc.

A dismissal for just cause may be upheld even if the employer failed to observe procedural due process, but the employer must pay nominal damages; Agabon vs. NLRC applies where the NLRC decision had not attained finality and no vested right under Serrano vs. NLRC had accrued.

Cityland is a corporation, and Baldemor was its Building Manager. Galang was Cityland’s janitor. The legal backdrop is the distinction between a dismissal for just cause and the written notice required by law, and the shift from Serrano vs. NLRC to Agabon vs. NLRC on the consequences of a dismissal for cause without procedural due process.

Romeo A. Galang worked as a janitor at Cityland Shaw Tower, Inc. after the expiration of his employment contracts with agencies providing maintenance services to Cityland; he alleged that Cityland absorbed him with a promise of regular employment after a six-month probation. He claimed that even after the lapse of the period, he continued working for Cityland although he had no idea about his employment status. He did not know his status for certain until he was shown a document on May 21, 2002 informing him that his employment would be terminated effective May 20, 2002.

Cityland countered that it absorbed Galang as a casual employee after the expiration of his contract with Gayren Maintenance Services. During his employment, they found him remiss in the performance of his job and he failed to conduct himself as a good employee; at times, he disobeyed the orders of his supervisor, Eva Tupas, Cityland’s janitorial services head. In the face of Galang’s negative work attitude and job performance, Cityland charged him with gross insubordination, harassment of co-employees, and conduct unbecoming an employee.

On one occasion, he took pictures of his co-janitors after he allegedly lost ₱4,000.00 in his locker; he suspected that the culprit was one of the janitors. This caused agitation among the janitors, prompting Tupas to investigate the incident. She called the janitors, including Galang, to a meeting. At the meeting, Galang told Tupas that she was not qualified to be his supervisor. He also verbally insulted and offended her in the presence of her subordinates. Additionally, the janitors, security guards, and other employees disclosed that Galang exhibited an air of superiority towards them and would always shout whenever misunderstandings occurred. Galang’s alleged transgressions were the subject of Tupas’ memo to Moralde Arrogante, Cityland’s President.

Prior to the incidents leading to Galang’s dismissal, he had committed serious negligence in his work: the 32nd floor of the condominium where he was assigned flooded because he failed to secure tightly the valve filter room; the flooding severely damaged the building’s elevator, resulting in repair work amounting to ₱23,952.65. Cityland’s Board of Directors terminated Galang’s services for gross insubordination effective May 20, 2002 after a “comprehensive examination of the accusation against complainant.” Cityland, through Baldemor’s reply to the labor arbiter’s summons, denied liability for Galang’s money claims, maintaining that either the claim had no basis or Galang had already been granted the benefit.

On August 9, 2002, Galang filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with several money claims, including damages and attorney’s fees, against Cityland and Baldemor. Labor Arbiter Fe Superiaso-Cellan found that Cityland failed to present evidence to support Galang’s dismissal for cause after observance of due process; she observed that the alleged board resolution dismissing Galang was unsubstantiated and self-serving and carried no probative value, and that there was no proof Galang was notified of the charges before dismissal. The CA found the records replete with proof that Galang committed acts justifying termination, relying on Tupas’ Sinumpaang Salaysay executed and notarized on April 14, 2005, Baldemor’s affidavit also executed and notarized on April 14, 2005, and the joint affidavit of Cityland’s audit team (Arrogante, Emilio dela Cruz, and Baldemor) notarized on April 14, 2005; the CA also found that the investigation conference did not give Galang clear knowledge of the charges.

• Evidence Not Presented Below: Petitioner argued that the CA gravely erred in holding there was just cause based on evidence not presented before the labor arbiter and the NLRC; Tupas’ Sinumpaang Salaysay and the joint affidavit of Baldemor, Arrogante, and Dela Cruz were submitted only on motion for reconsideration in April 2005, were self-serving, and were not admissible.
• Retroactive Application of Agabon: Petitioner argued that Agabon vs. NLRC could not be applied retroactively to his case because it was not yet in place when the case was filed and Serrano vs. NLRC was the prevailing doctrine; under Serrano, failure to comply with the notice requirement in a dismissal for cause entitled the employee to full backwages.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion and Just Cause: Respondents contended that the CA committed no grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the labor arbiter’s and NLRC’s findings; their evidence satisfied the burden of proof, while Galang offered only his identification card and did not refute their assertions.
• Admissibility of Affidavits: Respondents argued that the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law are not controlling in labor cases; the affidavits were intended to elucidate, corroborate, or bolster evidence already presented to the labor arbiter, including Tupas’ investigation report, and Galang did not deny the contents of their documentary evidence.
• No Vested Right Under Serrano: Respondents countered that Galang’s retroactivity argument assumed a vested right under the labor arbiter’s and NLRC’s decisions, but those decisions had not attained finality; Agabon vs. NLRC had overturned and abandoned Serrano vs. NLRC without conditions, so Galang acquired no vested right under Serrano.

• Just Cause: Whether there was substantial evidence to support the CA’s finding that Galang was dismissed for just cause.
• Admissibility of Affidavits: Whether the CA erred in relying on affidavits submitted for the first time to the NLRC.
• Procedural Due Process: Whether Cityland afforded Galang the required written notice before dismissing him.
• Retroactivity of Agabon: Whether the CA erred in applying Agabon vs. NLRC instead of Serrano vs. NLRC.

• Just Cause: Yes. There was substantial evidence—relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate—supporting the CA’s finding that Galang was dismissed for just cause.
• Admissibility of Affidavits: No. The challenged affidavits were not the sole basis of the CA ruling; they merely corroborated the respondents’ earlier submissions to the labor arbiter.
• Procedural Due Process: No. The investigation conference did not constitute the written notice required by law because Galang had no clear idea of the charges against him.
• Retroactivity of Agabon: No. The NLRC decision had not attained finality, and when the CA ruled, the SC had abandoned Serrano vs. NLRC in favor of Agabon vs. NLRC.

• Just Cause: The SC applied the substantial evidence standard—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It held that the CA did not commit reversible error or grave abuse of discretion in declaring Galang dismissed for cause. The affidavits Galang objected to were not the sole basis; they corroborated Tupas’ May 20, 2002 memorandum to Arrogante and Cityland’s reply to the labor arbiter’s summons, where the Board approved Tupas’ and the audit team’s recommendation for dismissal. The grounds had already been laid down in Tupas’ memorandum, which pertained to harassment of co-janitors, insubordination to a supervisor, and conduct unbecoming an employee. The documents also cited Galang’s serious negligence in causing the flooding of his assigned condominium floor, which damaged the elevator and resulted in repair costs of ₱23,952.65. Tupas reported that Galang took pictures of co-janitors after losing ₱4,000.00, refused to surrender the pictures, harassed the janitors, insulted Tupas in front of everybody, disobeyed her orders, and was hard to deal with. The SC found credible that Galang had become unfit to continue in employment, and noted that he did not deny the documented accusations.
• Admissibility of Affidavits: The SC rejected Galang’s objection that the CA relied on evidence not presented before the labor arbiter and NLRC. It reasoned that the 2005 affidavits simply amplified the evidence Cityland submitted in 2002, including documents citing Galang’s serious negligence and Tupas’ memorandum. Because the affidavits were not the sole basis and merely corroborated earlier submissions, the CA did not err in considering them.
• Procedural Due Process: The SC concurred with the CA that Cityland did not afford Galang the required notice before dismissal. The investigation conference Tupas called to look into the janitors’ complaints did not constitute the written notice required by law because Galang had no clear idea what the charges were. Thus, although the dismissal was for just cause, it was procedurally defective, and the CA correctly awarded nominal damages as indemnity.
• Retroactivity of Agabon: The SC disagreed with Galang’s retroactivity argument. The NLRC decision did not attain finality because it was brought to the CA on a petition for certiorari and was overturned. Galang therefore had no final arbiter or NLRC decision to which Serrano vs. NLRC could be applied. When the CA ruled, the SC had abandoned Serrano in favor of Agabon vs. NLRC. Thus, the CA committed no error in applying Agabon.

• Just Cause and Procedural Due Process Are Distinct — A dismissal for just cause may be upheld even if the employer failed to observe procedural due process; the employer is liable for nominal damages, not full backwages, under Agabon vs. NLRC. In this case, Galang was dismissed for just cause but without the required written notice, so the CA awarded ₱30,000 nominal damages.
• Substantial Evidence — Such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The SC found substantial evidence in Tupas’ memorandum, Cityland’s reply to the labor arbiter’s summons, and the corroborating affidavits.
• Corroborative Affidavits in Labor Cases — Affidavits submitted later may be considered where they merely amplify or corroborate evidence already presented to the labor arbiter and are not the sole basis of the ruling. The SC upheld the CA’s consideration of the 2005 affidavits because they corroborated Cityland’s 2002 submissions.
• Retroactivity of Agabon vs. NLRC — Agabon applies where the NLRC decision had not attained finality and no vested right under Serrano vs. NLRC had accrued. Because the NLRC decision was still on certiorari and was overturned, Galang had no final decision under Serrano.

• “Contrary to Galang’s submission, there is substantial evidence — such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion — supporting the CA decision.” — This passage states the substantial evidence standard the SC used to uphold the CA’s just-cause finding.
• “The finding of a just cause for Galang’s dismissal notwithstanding, we concur with the CA’s conclusion that Cityland did not afford Galang the required notice before he was dismissed.” — This passage separates the just-cause finding from the procedural due process violation.
• “As the CA noted, the investigation conference Tupas called to look into the janitors’ complaints against Galang, did not constitute the written notice required by law as he had no clear idea what the charges were.” — This passage explains why the investigation conference did not satisfy procedural due process.
• “As the respondents correctly pointed out, the decision of the NLRC did not attain finality as it was brought to the CA on a petition for certiorari and was overturned.” — This passage supports the SC’s holding that Agabon, not Serrano, applied.

• Agabon vs. NLRC, 485 Phil. 248 (2004) — Controlling precedent; applied to award nominal damages for dismissal for just cause without procedural due process.
• Serrano vs. NLRC, 380 Phil. 416 (2000) — Prior doctrine that would have awarded full backwages for lack of notice; abandoned by Agabon and not applied because no final decision had accrued.
• Bibas vs. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), G.R. No. 172580, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 591 — Cited for the definition of substantial evidence.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Galang filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45; the SC denied it for lack of merit.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Cityland elevated the NLRC decision to the CA through a petition for certiorari; the CA granted the petition.
• Written Notice Requirement — The SC applied the requirement of written notice before dismissal for cause; the investigation conference did not satisfy it because Galang had no clear idea of the charges.
• Section 13, Article VIII, Constitution — The decision contains the required certification that the conclusions were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion.