Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Galvez
G.R. No. 178184; January 29, 2014
FACTS:
HELD:
Yes. In termination disputes, the burden of proving that the dismissal is for a just
or valid cause rests on the employers. Failure on their part to discharge such burden will
render the dismissal illegal. The CA did not commit any error in finding that
respondents were illegally dismissed. According to the termination notice, respondents
were dismissed based on the grounds of (a) serious misconduct (b) engaging in pilferage
wile navigating at sea (c) willful breach of the trust reposed by the company (d)
commission of a crime against their employer. After examination of the evidence, the
court finds that petitioners failed to substantiate the charges of pilferage against
respondents. The quantum of proof that should be presented is substantial evidence.
Mere filing of formal charge does not automatically make dismissal valid. The affidavit
executed simply contained accusations while allegations remained uncorroborated. Also
there is no sufficient evidence to show respondents participation in the commission of
the crime.
Respondents termination due to loss of trust and confidence should have a
distinction between managerial and rank and file employees. Rank-and-file employees
require proof of involvement while managerial employees mere existence of a basis for
belief is sufficient. Given that Galvez and Gruta have managerial positions there is some
basis for the loss of employers confidenceregarding the overstatement of fuel
consumption without any evidence to the contrary. While the others, who are ordinary
rank and file employees, were not proven to have any involvement in the loss of the
vessels fuel. Rendering their dismissals illegal. The employer bears the burden of proof
in illegal dismissal cases thus the employer must first establish by substantial evidence
the fact of dismissal.