Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
*
G.R. No. 174585. October 19, 2007.
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
359
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015df06eb6d2d1e4f2aa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
8/17/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537
employment. Before the private respondent must bear the burden of proving
that the dismissal was legal, petitioner must rst 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., 389 SCRA 534
(2006), 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 nds no application here because the respondents deny
having dismissed the petitioners.
Same; Same; Social Justice; The law in protecting the rights of the
employees, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the
employerthere 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.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.
360
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015df06eb6d2d1e4f2aa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
8/17/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (now a member of this Court) with
Associate Justices Josena Guevarra-Salonga and Fernanda Lampas-Peralta,
concurring. Rollo, pp. 38-50.
2 Rollo, pp. 52-53.
3 Id., at p. 82.
4 Id.
361
_______________
362
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015df06eb6d2d1e4f2aa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
8/17/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537
tion Ty. After a while, HR Manager Cueva came out of the ofce
with VP for Administration Ty. To petitioners surprise, HR
Manager Cueva took back the earlier Notice to Explain given to him
and atly declared that there was no more need for the petitioner to
explain since his drug test result revealed that he was positive for
drugs. When petitioner, however, asked for a copy of the said drug
test result, HR Manager Cueva told him that it was with the
companys president, but she would also later claim that the drug
8
test result was already with the proper authorities at Camp Crame.
Petitioner was then asked by HR Manager Cueva to sign a
resignation letter and also remarked that whether or not petitioner
would resign willingly, he was no longer considered an employee of
private respondent. All these events transpired in the presence of VP
for Administration Ty, who even convinced petitioner to just
voluntarily resign with the assurance that he would still be given
separation pay. Petitioner did not yet sign the resignation letter
replying that he needed time to think over the offers. When
petitioner went back to private respondents training site in
Dasmarias, Cavite, to get his bicycle, he was no longer allowed by
9
the guard to enter the premises.
On the following day, petitioner immediately went to St.
Dominic Medical Center for a drug test and he was found negative
for any drug substance. With his drug result on hand, petitioner went
back to private respondents main ofce in Manila to talk to VP for
Administration Ty and HR Manager Cueva and to show to them his
drug test result. Petitioner then told VP for Administration Ty and
HR Manager Cueva that since his drug test proved that he was not
guilty of the drug use charge against him, he decided to continue to
10
work for the private respondent.
_______________
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
363
_______________
364
_______________
14 Id.
15 Id., at pp. 144-160.
16 Id., at pp. 160-172.
17 Id., at pp. 54-64.
365
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015df06eb6d2d1e4f2aa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
8/17/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537
I.
_______________
18 Id., at p. 63.
19 Id., at p. 42.
20 Id., at pp. 38-50.
21 Id., at pp. 52-53.
22 Id., at pp. 12-36.
366
II.
III.
Before we delve into the merits of this case, it is best to stress that
the issues raised by petitioner in this instant petition are factual
24
in
nature which is not within the ofce of a Petition for Review. The
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015df06eb6d2d1e4f2aa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
8/17/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537
raison detre for this rule is that, this Court is not a trier of facts and
does not routinely undertake the re-examination of the evidence
presented by the contending parties for the factual ndings of the
labor ofcials who have acquired expertise in their own elds are
accorded not only respect but even nality, and are binding upon this
25
Court.
However, when the ndings of the Labor Arbiter contradict those
of the NLRC, departure from the general rule is warranted, and this
Court must of necessity make an innitesimal scrunity and examine
the records all over again including the evidence presented by the
opposing parties to determine
_______________
367
_______________
26 Sta. Catalina College v. National Labor Relations Commission, 461 Phil. 720,
730; 416 SCRA 233, 239 (2003).
27 Rollo, pp. 118-119.
368
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015df06eb6d2d1e4f2aa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
8/17/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537
_______________
28 Philippine Air Lines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159556, 26 May 2005, 459
SCRA 236, 251.
29 Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 511, 531;
296 SCRA 514, 534 (1998).
369
not to resign but face the possible disciplinary charges against him.
The nal decision, therefore, whether to voluntarily resign or to
continue working still, ultimately rests with the petitioner. In fact, by
petitoners own admission, he requested from VP for Administration
Ty more time to think over the offer.
Moreover, the petitioner alleged that he was not allowed to enter
the training site by the guard on duty who told him that he was
already banned from the premises. Subsequently, however, petitioner
admitted in his Supplemental Afdavit that he was able to return to
the said site on 3 December 2000, to claim his 16-30 November
2000 salary, and again on 9 December 2000, to receive his 13th
month pay. The fact alone that he was able to return to the training
site to claim his salary and benets raises doubt as to his purported
ban from the premises.
Finally, petitioners stance that he was dismissed by private
respondent was further weakened with the presentation of private
respondents payroll bearing petitioners name proving that
petitioner remained as private respondents employee up to
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015df06eb6d2d1e4f2aa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
8/17/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537
_______________
30 Id., at p. 529.
370
tioner, other than his own contentions that he was indeed dismissed
by private respondent.
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
31
facie case that the petitioner was dismissed from employment.
Before the private respondent must bear the burden of proving that
the dismissal was legal, petitioner must rst 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. 32
In Machica v. Roosevelt Services Center, Inc., 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 nds
no application here because the respondents deny having dismissed the
33
petitioners.
34
In Runa Patis Factory v. Alusitain, this Court took the occasion to
emphasize:
_______________
31 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 pp. 544-545.
34 G.R. No. 146202, 14 July 2004, 434 SCRA 418.
371
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015df06eb6d2d1e4f2aa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
8/17/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537
VOL. 537, OCTOBER 19, 2007 371
Ledesma, Jr. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that
35
of his opponent.
_______________
35 Id., at p. 428.
36 JPL Marketing Promotions v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 151966, 8 July 2005,
463 SCRA 136, 149-150.
372
o0o
373
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015df06eb6d2d1e4f2aa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11