G.R. No. 165923. September 29, 2010.

* Same; Same; Same; Due Process; The purpose of the one month prior
notice rule is to give Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) an
SHIMIZU PHILS. CONTRACTORS, opportunity to ascertain the veracity of the cause of termination—non-
INC.,** petitioner, vs. VIRGILIO P. CALLANTA, respondent. compliance with this rule clearly violates the employee’s right to statutory
Labor Law; Appeals; Under certain circumstances, the Court of due process.—Although there was authorized cause
Appeals is allowed to review the factual findings or the legal conclusions of 531
the National Labor Relations Commission in order to determine whether VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 5
these findings are supported by the evidence presented and the
conclusions derived therefrom are accurately ascertained.—At the outset,
31
the power of the CA to review a decision of the NLRC “in a petition Shimizu Phils. Contractors, Inc. vs. Callanta
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court does to dismiss respondent from the service, we find that petitioner did not
_______________ comply with the 30-day notice requirement. Petitioner maintains that it
substantially complied with the requirement of the law in that it, in fact,
* FIRST DIVISION. submitted two notices or reports with the DOLE. However, petitioner
** Sometimes referred to as Shimizu Philippines Contractors, Inc. or Shimizu Philippine
Contractors, Inc. in some parts of the records. admitted that the reports were submitted 21 days, in the case of the first
530 notice, and 16 days, in the case of the second notice, before the intended
5 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED date of respondent’s dismissal. The purpose of the one month prior notice
rule is to give DOLE an opportunity to ascertain the veracity of the cause of
30 termination. Non-compliance with this rule clearly violates the employee’s
Shimizu Phils. Contractors, Inc. vs. Callanta right to statutory due process. Consequently, we affirm the NLRC’s award
not normally include an inquiry into the correctness of the NLRC’s of indemnity to respondent for want of sufficient due notice. But to be
evaluation of the evidence.” However, under certain circumstances, the CA consistent with our ruling in Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot, 454
is allowed to review the factual findings or the legal conclusions of the SCRA 119 (2005), the indemnity in the form of nominal damages should be
NLRC in order to determine whether these findings are supported by the fixed in the amount of P50,000.00.
evidence presented and the conclusions derived therefrom are accurately PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and
ascertained. It has been held that “[i]t is within the jurisdiction of the CA x resolution of the Court of Appeals.
x x to review the findings of the NLRC.” From the foregoing, the CA, in the
present case, cannot be faulted in re-evaluating the NLRC’s findings as it    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
can undoubtedly affirm, modify or reverse the same if the evidence   Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan for
warrants. Having settled thus, we shall now proceed to review whether the petitioner.
CA correctly appreciated the NLRC’s finding and if the CA’s resultant
decision was in accord with law and evidentiary facts.   Jose Allan N. Maglasang for respondent.
Same; Termination of Employment; Retrenchment; Requisites.—As an DEL CASTILLO, J.:
authorized cause for separation from service under Article 283 of the Labor By this Petition for Review on Certiorari,1 Shimizu
Code, retrenchment is a valid exercise of management prerogative subject
to the strict requirements set by jurisprudence: (1) That the retrenchment Phils. Contractors, Inc. (petitioner) assails the
is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses which, if Decision2 dated June 10, 2004 and Resolution 3 dated
already incurred, are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, October 5, 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
actual and real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived
objectively and in good faith by the employer; (2) That the employer SP. No. 66888, which reversed the Decision 4 dated
served written notice both to the employees and to the Department of December 14, 2000 of the National Labor
Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the intended date of _______________
retrenchment; (3) That the employer pays the retrenched employees
separation pay equivalent to one month pay or at least ½ month pay for 1 Rollo, pp. 3-28.
every year of service, whichever is higher; (4) That the employer exercises 2 Annex “A” of the Petition, id., at pp. 30-37; penned by Associate Justice Noel G.
its prerogative to retrench employees in good faith for the advancement of Tijam and concurred in by Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Jose L. Sabio, Jr.
its interest and not to defeat or circumvent the employees’ right to 3 Annex “B” of the Petition, id., at pp. 48-49.
4 Annex “C” of the Petition, id., at pp. 60-75; penned by Commissioner Ireneo B.
security of tenure; and (5) That the employer used fair and reasonable
Bernardo and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and
criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained Commissioner Tito F. Genilo.
among the employees, such as status, x x x efficiency, seniority, physical 532
fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers.
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 533
Shimizu Phils. Contractors, Inc. vs. Callanta VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 533
Relations Commission (NLRC) and ordered petitioner to Shimizu Phils. Contractors, Inc. vs. Callanta
reinstate Virgilio P. Callanta (respondent) and pay him which the latter refused to accept and instead filed an
his backwages for not having been validly dismissed. illegal dismissal complaint.
Antecedent Facts Respondent claimed that petitioner failed to comply
Petitioner, a corporation engaged in the construction with the requirements called for by law before
business, employed respondent on August 23, 1994 as implementing a retrenchment program thereby
Safety Officer assigned at petitioner’s Yutaka-Giken rendering it legally infirmed. First, it did not comply with
Project and eventually as Project Administrator of the provision of the Labor Code mandating the service
petitioner’s Structural Steel Division (SSD) in 1995. of notice of retrenchment. He pointed out that the
In a Memorandum dated June 7, 1997,5 respondent notice sent to him never mentioned retrenchment but
was informed that his services will be terminated only project completion as the cause of termination.
effective July 9, 1997 due to the lack of any vacancy in Also, the notice sent to the Department of Labor and
other projects and the need to re-align the company’s Employment (DOLE) did not conform to the 30-day prior
personnel requirements brought about by the notice requirement. Second, petitioner failed to use fair
imperatives of maximum financial commitments. and reasonable criteria in determining which employees
Respondent then filed an illegal dismissal complaint shall be retrenched or retained. As shown in the
against petitioner assailing his dismissal as without any termination report6 submitted to DOLE, he was the only
valid cause. one dismissed out of 333 employees. Worse, junior and
Petitioner advanced that respondent’s services was inexperienced employees were appointed/assigned in
terminated in accordance with a valid retrenchment his stead to new projects thus also ignoring seniority in
program being implemented by the company since hiring and firing employees. 
1996 due to financial crisis that plague the construction In reply, petitioner reiterated its progressive
industry. To prove its financial deficit, petitioner implementation of the retrenchment program and finds
presented financial statements for the years 1995 to this as basis why respondent’s termination coincided
1997 as well as the Securities and Exchange with project completion. Petitioner argued that when it
Commission’s approval of petitioner’s application for a submitted the retrenchment notice/termination report
new paid-in capital amounting to P330,000,000. to DOLE, there was already substantial compliance with
Petitioner alleged that in order not to jeopardize the the requirement. It explained that such termination
completion of its projects, the abolition of several report reflects only the number of employees
departments and the concomitant termination of some retrenched for the particular month of July of 1997 and
employees were implemented as each project is cannot be deemed as evidence of the total number of
completed. When respondent’s Honda Project was employees affected by the retrenchment program.
completed, petitioner offered respondent his separation Petitioner also accused respondent of giving false
pay narration of facts about his employment position and
_______________ further disclosed that respondent has been saddled with
5 CA Rollo, p. 48.
complaints subject of administrative investigations for Shimizu Phils. Contractors, Inc. vs. Callanta
violations of several company rules, i.e., cited for WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby
_______________ rendered dismissing the instant complaint for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.”12
6 Id., at p. 69. Ruling of the National Labor Relations
534 Commission
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Upon appeal, the NLRC upheld the ruling that there
Shimizu Phils. Contractors, Inc. vs. Callanta was valid ground for respondent’s termination but
discrepancies in his time sheet, 7 unauthorized use of modified the Labor Arbiter’s Decision by holding that
company vehicle,8 stealing of company property 9 and petitioner violated respondent’s right to procedural due
abandonment of work,10 so much so that petitioner’s process. The NLRC found that petitioner failed to comply
decision to appoint more competent and more senior with the 30-day prior notice to the DOLE and that there
employees in his stead cannot be questioned. is no proof that petitioner used fair and reasonable
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter criteria in the selection of employees to be retrenched.
On April 14, 2000, the Labor Arbiter rendered a The dispositive portion of the NLRC Decision reads:
Decision11 holding that respondent was validly “WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the finding of the Labor
retrenched. He found that sufficient evidence was Arbiter a quo is MODIFIED.
Respondent Shimizu Philippine Contractor, Inc., is ordered to pay
presented to establish company losses; that petitioner complainant-appellant Virgilio P. Callanta his separation pay equivalent to
offered respondent his separation pay; and that one (1) month pay for every year of service. For want of due notice,
petitioner duly notified DOLE about the retrenchment. respondent is further directed to pay complainant an indemnity equivalent
to one (1) month salary.
The Labor Arbiter further relied on petitioner’s factual SO ORDERED.”13
version relating to respondent’s employment Both parties sought reconsideration of the NLRC’s
background with regard to his position and behavioral Decision. Respondent, in his Motion for
conduct. Reconsideration,  attributed grave error upon the NLRC
14

Pertinent portions of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision in ruling that the absence of fair and reasonable criteria
read: in effecting the retrenchment affected only the
“In terminating the services of complainant, respondent Shimizu had
complied with the requirements of law on retrenchment. It had prepared a
requirements of due process, arguing that such failure
check for the amount of P 29,320.30 as payment for his separation pay should have invalidated the entire retrenchment
and other entitlements. However, as afore-stated, complainant refused to program. Petitioner, for its part, filed a Motion for Partial
receive the amount, for reasons known only to him. Also, respondent _______________
company had duly notified the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) about the retrenchment of the complainant. 12 Id., at p. 59.
_______________ 13 Id., at p. 74.
14 CA Rollo, pp. 30-36.
7  See Memorandum dated March 16, 1996, Annexes “12” and “12-A” of petitioner’s reply
to respondent’s position paper before the Labor Arbiter, Rollo, pp. 167-169.
536
8  See Incident Regulation Violation Report dated April 1, 1997, Annex “13,” id., at p. 170. 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
9  See Sworn Statement of Mr. Rolando Villon dated April 7, 1997, Annex “14,” id., at pp.
171-172. Shimizu Phils. Contractors, Inc. vs. Callanta
10 See Memorandum dated May 22, 1997, Annex “15,” id., at p. 173.
11 Annex “D” of the Petition, id., at pp. 50-59; penned by Labor Arbiter Enrico A.C. Portillo. Reconsideration15 questioning the amount of separation
535 pay awarded to respondent.
VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 535
 The NLRC, in its Resolution16 dated June 29, 2001, The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
denied respondent’s motion and found merit in “WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated December 14, 2000 and the
Resolution dated June 29, 2001 both of the National Labor Relations
petitioner’s motion by modifying the amount of Commission, Third Division in NLRC Case No. CA 024643-00 are REVERSED
separation pay to an amount equivalent to one month and SET ASIDE.
or one-half month pay for every year of service, Private Respondent Shimizu Philippine Contractors, Inc. is hereby
ORDERED to reinstate Petitioner VIRGILIO P. CALLANTA with backwages
whichever is higher, in consonance with Article 283 of computed from the date of his dismissal on July 9, 1997 up to the finality of
the Labor Code. Thus: this Decision without loss of seniority rights and benefits appurtenant to his
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complainant’s Motion for position.
Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The respondent’s SO ORDERED.”18
partial motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. Consequently, our The CA denied petitioner’s Motion for
Decision promulgated on December 14, 2000 is hereby MODIFIED in that
the separation pay granted to complainant should be one (1) month pay or Reconsideration  and reiterated that petitioner offered
19

one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher, a no proof of any standard or program intended to
fraction of at least six months to be considered one (1) whole year. implement the retrenchment program.
Other dispositions in our said Decision stand Affirmed.
SO ORDERED.”17
Ruling of the Court of Appeals Issues
Undaunted, respondent filed a petition
Thus, the instant petition raising the following issues:
for certiorari with the CA. On June 10, 2004, the CA A.
reversed and set aside the NLRC’s ruling. The CA opined WHETHER X X X THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS EXCEEDED ITS
that petitioner failed to prove that there were JURISDICTION WHEN IT REVERSED THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LABOR
ARBITER AND THE NLRC BY RE-EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD.
employees other than respondent who were similarly B.
dismissed due to retrenchment and that respondent’s WHETHER X X X THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED
alleged replacements held much higher ranks and were IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO
_______________
more deserving employees. Moreover, there were no
proofs to sustain that petitioner used fair and 18 Id., at p. 36
19 Annex “B” of the Petition, id., at pp. 38-46.
reasonable criteria in determining which employees to 538
retrench. According to the CA, petitioner’s failure to 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
produce evidence raises the presumption that such Shimizu Phils. Contractors, Inc. vs. Callanta
evidence will be adverse to it. Conse- OBSERVE FAIR AND REASONABLE STANDARDS OR CRITERIA IN EFFECTING
_______________ THE DISMISSAL OF [RESPONDENT]. 20
Petitioner contends that the CA’s corrective power in
15 Id., at pp. 148-150.
16 Annex “F” of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 76-78.
petitions for certiorari is confined only to jurisdictional
17 Id., at p. 77. issues and a determination of whether there is grave
537 abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 537 jurisdiction. It does not encompass the reevaluation and
Shimizu Phils. Contractors, Inc. vs. Callanta reassessment of factual findings and conclusions of the
quently, the CA invalidated the retrenchment, held Labor Arbiter which should be accorded great weight
respondent to have been illegally dismissed, and and respect when affirmed by the NLRC. According to
ordered respondent’s reinstatement and payment of petitioner, the CA gravely erred in finding that no valid
backwages.
retrenchment exists contrary to the prior findings of the as it can undoubtedly affirm, modify or reverse the
Labor Arbiter and NLRC. same if the evidence warrants. Having settled thus, we
Petitioner also insists that all the requisites for a valid shall now proceed to review whether the CA correctly
retrenchment have been established by substantial appreciated the NLRC’s finding and if the CA’s resultant
evidence and that it observed fair and reasonable decision was in accord with law and evidentiary facts.
standards in implementing its retrenchment program, to There was substantial compliance for a
wit: ability to perform work efficiently and seniority. As valid retrenchment; petitioner used fair
succinctly found by the Labor Arbiter, respondent is and reasonable criteria in effecting
notorious for violating company rules which adversely retrenchment.
reflected on his ability to perform work effectively. As an authorized cause for separation from service
Petitioner further denies that junior officers/ under Article 283 of the Labor Code,24 retrenchment is a
employees were retained and that respondent was valid exer-
singled out for termination. _______________

22 Oriental Petroleum and Minerals Corporation v. Fuentes, G.R. No. 151818,

Our Ruling October 14, 2005, 473 SCRA 106, 114.
23 Emcor Incorporated v. Sienes, G.R. No. 152101, September 8, 2009, 598
SCRA 617, 632.
We find the petition meritorious. 24 Art. 283. CLOSURE OF ESTABLISHMENT AND REDUCTION OF PERSONNEL.—
At the outset, the power of the CA to review a The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the
installation of labor saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or
decision of the NLRC “in a petition for certiorari under the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court does not normally include closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a
written notice on the worker and the Department of Labor and Employment at least
an inquiry into the correctness of the NLRC’s evaluation one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the
of the evidence.”21 However, under certain installation of labor saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall
be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or at
circumstances, the CA is allowed to review the factual least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of
findings or the legal conclusions of the NLRC retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of
_______________ establishment or un-
540
20 Id., at p. 140. 540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
21 AMA Computer College, Inc. v. Garcia, G.R. No. 166703, April 14, 2008, 551
SCRA 254, 269. Shimizu Phils. Contractors, Inc. vs. Callanta
539 cise of management prerogative subject to the strict
VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 539 requirements set by jurisprudence:
Shimizu Phils. Contractors, Inc. vs. Callanta (1) That the retrenchment is reasonably necessary
in order to determine whether these findings are and likely to prevent business losses which, if
supported by the evidence presented and the already incurred, are not merely de minimis, but
conclusions derived therefrom are accurately substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only
ascertained.  It has been held that “[i]t is within the
22 expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived
jurisdiction of the CA x x x to review the findings of the objectively and in good faith by the employer;
NLRC.”23 (2) That the employer served written notice both to
 From the foregoing, the CA, in the present case, the employees and to the Department of Labor and
cannot be faulted in re-evaluating the NLRC’s findings
 Employment at least one month prior to the or retained. The CA, then, reversed the Decision of the
intended date of retrenchment; NLRC by ruling that the absence of fair and reasonable
(3) That the employer pays the retrenched criteria in implementing the retrenchment invalidates
employees separation pay equivalent to one month altogether the retrenchment.
pay or at least ½ month pay for every year of Petitioner presented proof that it incurred substantial
service, whichever is higher; losses as shown by its financial statements and that it
(4) That the employer exercises its prerogative to substantially complied with the requirements of serving
retrench employees in good faith for the written notices of retrenchment. It was also shown that
advancement of its interest and not to defeat or it offered to pay respondent’s separation pay. The CA,
circumvent the employees’ right to security of however, ruled that petitioner failed to show that it
tenure; and implemented its retrenchment program in a just and
(5) That the employer used fair and reasonable proper manner in the absence of reasonable criteria in
criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed effecting such.
and who would be retained among the employees, We disagree. In implementing its retrenchment
such as status, x x x efficiency, seniority, physical scheme, petitioner was constrained to streamline its
fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain operations and to downsize its complements in a
workers.25 progressive manner in order not to jeopardize the
In the present case, both the Labor Arbiter and the completion of its projects. Thus, several departments
NLRC found sufficient compliance with these like the Civil Works Division, Electro-mechanical Works
substantive requirements, there being enough evidence Division and the Territorial Project Management Offices,
to prove that petitioner was sustaining business losses, among others, were abolished in the early part of 1996
that separation pay was offered to respondent, and that and thereafter the Structural Steel Division, of which
notices of termination of service respondent was an Administrator. Respondent was
_______________ among the last batch of employees who were
dertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation retrenched and by the end of year 1997, all of the
pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for employees of the Structural Steel Division were severed
every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall
be considered as one (1) whole year. from employment.
Respondent, in any of the pleadings filed by him,
25 Asian Alcohol Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 364 Phil. never refuted the foregoing facts. Respondent’s
912, 926-927; 305 SCRA 416, 429-430(1999).
541 argument that he was singled out for termination as
VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 541 allegedly shown in petitioner’s monthly termination
Shimizu Phils. Contractors, Inc. vs. Callanta report for the month of July 1997 filed with the DOLE
were furnished respondent and DOLE. However, the does not persuade this Court. Standing alone, this
NLRC modified the Decision of the Labor Arbiter by document is not proof of the total number of retrenched
granting respondent indemnity since the notice to DOLE employees or that respondent was the only one
was served short of the 30-day notice requirement and retrenched. It
542
that there is no proof of the use of fair and reasonable
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
criteria in the selection of employees to be retrenched
 Shimizu Phils. Contractors, Inc. vs. Callanta retrenchment scheme was arrived at in good faith, and
merely serves as notice to DOLE of the names of lastly, that the criteria or standard used in selecting the
employees terminated/ retrenched only for the month of employees to be retrenched
July. In other words, it cannot be deemed as an 543
evidence of the number of employees affected by the VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 543
retrenchment program. Thus we cannot conclude that Shimizu Phils. Contractors, Inc. vs. Callanta
no other employees were previously retrenched. was work efficiency which passed the test of fairness
Respondent then claimed that petitioner did not and reasonableness.
observe seniority in retrenching him. He further alleged The termination notice sent to DOLE did
that he is more qualified and efficient than those not comply with the 30-day notice
retained by petitioner. Notably, however, the records do requirement, thus, respondent is entitled
not bear any proof that these allegations were to indemnity for violation of due process.
substantiated. On the contrary, the Labor Arbiter found However, although there was authorized cause to
respondent’s notoriety due to pieces of evidence dismiss respondent from the service, we find that
showing numerous company violations imputed against petitioner did not comply with the 30-day notice
respondent. This fact of being subject of several requirement. Petitioner maintains that it substantially
administrative investigations, respondent failed to complied with the requirement of the law in that it, in
refute. Moreover, the Labor Arbiter likewise found fact, submitted two notices or reports with the DOLE.
respondent guilty of several misrepresentations in the However, petitioner admitted that the reports were
pleadings filed before the tribunal with regard to the submitted 21 days, in the case of the first notice, and 16
latter’s employment position. By advancing that other days, in the case of the second notice, before the
employees were less efficient, qualified and senior than intended date of respondent’s dismissal.
him, respondent has the burden of proving these The purpose of the one month prior notice rule is to
allegations which he failed to discharge. give DOLE an opportunity to ascertain the veracity of
On the contrary, we find that petitioner implemented the cause of termination.26 Non-compliance with this rule
its retrenchment program in good faith because it clearly violates the employee’s right to statutory due
undertook several measures in cutting down its costs, to process.Consequently, we affirm the NLRC’s award of
wit, withdrawing certain privileges of petitioner’s indemnity to respondent for want of sufficient due
executives and expatriates; limiting the grant of notice. But to be consistent with our ruling in Jaka Food
additional monetary benefits to managerial employees Processing Corporation v. Pacot,27 the indemnity in the
and cutting down expenses; selling of company form of nominal damages should be fixed in the amount
vehicles; and infusing fresh capital into the company. of P50,000.00.
Respondent did not attempt to refute that petitioner WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
adopted these measures before implementing its challenged June 10, 2004 Decision and October 5, 2004
retrenchment program. Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No.
In fine, we hold that petitioner was able to prove that 66888 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision and
it incurred substantial business losses, that it offered to Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission
pay respondent his separation pay, that the
dated December 14, 2000 and June 29, 2001,
respectively, upholding the legality of respon-
_______________

26 Mobilia Products, Inc. v. Demecillo, G.R. No. 170669, February 4, 2009, 578

SCRA 39, 50.
27 494 Phil. 114, 122; 454 SCRA 119, 127 (2005).
544
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Shimizu Phils. Contractors, Inc. vs. Callanta
dent’s dismissal and awarding him separation pay
equivalent to one (1) month pay or one-half (1/2) month
pay for every year of service, whichever is higher, are
REINSTATED and AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the
indemnity to be awarded to respondent is fixed in the
amount of P50,000.00 as nominal damages.
SO ORDERED.