You are on page 1of 4

On appeal, the NLRC, in a Decision[13] dated 31 August 2004, set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

It ruled that the


Labor Arbiter erred in considering preventive suspension as a penalty. While it is true that preventive suspension can ripen
into constructive dismissal when it goes beyond the 30-day maximum period allowed by law, such is not prevailing in this
case since Artificio immediately filed a complaint before the labor tribunal. It added that it was Artificio who terminated his
relationship with respondents when he asked for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement although he has not yet been
dismissed. The NLRC clarified further that:
x x x While it is true that preventive suspension can ripen into a constructive dismissal when such goes
beyond the 30 day maximum period allowable by law, such is not prevailing in the case at bar as it was
complainant who chose to file a complaint and have due process before the courts of law. It was
complainant who terminated the relationship with respondents by asking for separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement when the fact of dismissal has not yet happened. From the documents presented,
complainant was put on preventive suspension pending investigation of company violations which were
supported by documentary evidences on July 29, 2002. He was set to be heard on August 12, 2002 but
before the respondents could hear his side, he filed this instant complaint on August 5, 2002, pre-empting
the administrative investigation undertaken by respondents
While we recognize the rule that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of proving that the
termination was for a valid or authorized cause, in the present case, however, the facts and the evidence do not establish
a prima facie case that the employee was dismissed from employment. Before the employer must bear the burden of
proving that the dismissal was legal, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal
from service. Logically, if there is no dismissal, then there can be no question as to its legality or illegality.
Well-entrenched is the principle that in order to establish a case before judicial and quasi-administrative bodies, it is
necessary that allegations must be supported by substantial evidence.[28] Substantial evidence is more than a mere
scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[29]
In the present case, there is hardly any evidence on record so as to meet the quantum of evidence required, i.e., substantial
evidence. Petitioners claim of illegal dismissal is supported by no other than his own bare, uncorroborated and, thus, selfserving allegations, which are also incoherent, inconsistent and contradictory.
[28]
[29]

Philippine Air Line v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159556, 26 May 2005, 459 SCRA 236, 251.
Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 511, 531 (1998).

FEDERICO M. LEDESMA, JR.,


Petitioner,
- versus NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC-SECOND DIVISION) HONS. RAUL T. AQUINO,
VICTORIANO R. CALAYCAY and ANGELITA A. GACUTAN ARE THE COMMISSIONERS, PHILIPPINE
NAUTICAL TRAINING INC., ATTY. HERNANI FABIA, RICKY TY, PABLO MANOLO, C. DE LEON and
TREENA CUEVA,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 174585 October 19, 2007
While this Court is not unmindful of the rule that in cases of illegal dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proof to
prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause in the case at bar, however, the facts and the evidence did not
establish a prima facie case that the petitioner was dismissed from employment.[31] Before the private respondent must
bear the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, petitioner must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his
dismissal from service. Logically, if there is no dismissal, then there can be no question as to the legality or illegality
thereof.
In Machica v. Roosevelt Services Center, Inc.,[32] we had underscored that the burden of proving the allegations rest upon
the party alleging, to wit:

The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; thus, petitioners were burdened to
prove their allegation that respondents dismissed them from their employment.It must be stressed that
the evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive and convincing. The rule that the employer bears
the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no application here because the respondents deny
having dismissed the petitioners.[33]
In Rufina Patis Factory v. Alusitain,[34] this Court took the occasion to emphasize:
It is a basic rule in evidence, however, that the burden of proof is on the part of the party who makes the
allegations ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat. If he claims a right granted by law, he must
prove his claim by competent evidence, relying on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the
weakness of that of his opponent.[35]
It is true that the Constitution affords full protection to labor, and that in light of this Constitutional mandate, we must be
vigilant in striking down any attempt of the management to exploit or oppress the working class. However, it does not
mean that we are bound to uphold the working class in every labor dispute brought before this Court for our resolution.
The law in protecting the rights of the employees, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. It
should be made clear that when the law tilts the scales of justice in favor of labor, it is in recognition of the inherent
economic inequality between labor and management. The intent is to balance the scales of justice; to put the two parties on
relatively equal positions. There may be cases where the circumstances warrant favoring labor over the interests of
management but never should the scale be so tilted if the result is an injustice to the employer. Justitia nemini neganda est -justice is to be denied to none.[36]
Schering Employees Labor Union (SELU) v. Schering Plough Corporation, G.R. No. 142506, 17 February 2005, 451
SCRA 689, 695.
[32]
G.R. No. 168664, 4 May 2006, 389 SCRA 534.
[33]
Id. at 544-545.
[34]
G.R. No. 146202, 14 July 2004, 434 SCRA 418.
[35]
Id. at 428.
[36]
JPL Marketing Promotions v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 151966, 8 July 2005, 463 SCRA 136, 149-150.

EXODUS INTERNATIONAL

G.R. No. 166109

CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
and ANTONIO P. JAVALERA,
Petitioners,
-versus-

Present:
CORONA, C. J., Chairperson,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,

GUILLERMO BISCOCHO,

DEL CASTILLO, and

FERNANDO PEREDA, FERDINAND

PEREZ, JJ.

MARIANO, GREGORIO BELLITA


and MIGUEL BOBILLO,

Promulgated:
Respondents.

February 23, 2011

[T]his Court is not unmindful of the rule that in cases of illegal dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proof to prove that
the termination was for a valid or authorized cause.[21] But [b]efore the [petitioners] must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal
was legal, [the respondents] must first establish by substantial evidence that indeed they were dismissed. [I]f there is no dismissal, then
there can be no question as to the legality or illegality thereof.[22]

There was no dismissal in this case, hence, there is no question that can be
entertained regarding its legality or illegality.
As found by the Labor Arbiter, there was no evidence that respondents were dismissed nor were they prevented from returning to
their work. It was only respondents unsubstantiated conclusion that they were dismissed. As a matter of fact, respondents could not
name the particular person who effected their dismissal and under what particular circumstances.
In Machica v. Roosevelt Services Center, Inc.,[23] this Court sustained the employer's denial as against the employees'
categorical assertion of illegal dismissal. In so ruling, this Court held that:
The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; thus, petitioners were burdened to prove their
allegation that respondents dismissed them from their employment. It must be stressed that the evidence to prove this
fact must be clear, positive and convincing. The rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal
cases finds no application here because the respondents deny having dismissed the petitioners.
In this case, petitioners were able to show that they never dismissed respondents. As to the case of Fernando, Miguel and
Ferdinand, it was shown that on November 25, 2000, at around 7:30 a.m., the petitioners foreman, Wenifredo Lalap (Wenifredo) caught
the three still eating when they were supposed to be working already. Wenifredo reprimanded them and, apparently, they resented it so
they no longer reported for work. In the case of Gregorio, he absented himself from work on September 15, 2000 to apply as a painter
with SAEI-EEI, the general contractor of Pacific Plaza Towers. Since then he never reported back to work. Lastly, in the case of
Guillermo, he absented himself without leave on November 27, 2000, and so he was reprimanded when he reported for work the
following day. Because of the reprimand, he did not report for work anymore.
Hence, as between respondents general allegation of having been orally dismissed from the service vis-a-vis those of petitioners
which were found to be substantiated by the sworn statement of foreman Wenifredo, we are persuaded by the latter. Absent any showing
of an overt or positive act proving that petitioners had dismissed respondents, the latters claim of illegal dismissal cannot be
sustained. Indeed, a cursory examination of the records reveal no illegal dismissal to speak of.

Respondent entitled to
Damages and Attorneys fees
And litigation costs.

1. The act of the Complainant in filing this baseless case for underpayment of wage when
he was paid much more than the required minimum wage rates, in claiming payments for
Overtime Pay and Holiday Pay when he was not entitled to the same having no fixed working time,
in alleging non-payment of 13th month pay when he was actually paid, in claiming for separation
pay when he in fact abandoned his work and has committed a willful breach of the trust reposed
upon him by the respondents, are acts which obviously in bad faith, abusive and oppressive to the
respondents.
2. He obviously acted maliciously and in bad faith in filing this labor case after having
realized that the respondent is in the process of investigating his acts of embezzlement
preparatory to the filing of a criminal case against him.
3. All told, is it beyond doubt the Complainant deserves to be indemnified with Damages
as this Honorable Tribunal may determine.
Respondent entitled to
Attorneys Fees and
Litigation Costs
4.
Moreover, the filing of this baseless case has caused the respondents to hire a
lawyer for its legal services for which the respondent committed to pay the amount of P20,000.00

as Attorneys Fees and is expected to incur litigation Costs and expenses in the amount of P
10,000.00.

You might also like