8/9/2019 research2.doc

1/4

On appeal, the NLRC, in a Decision[13]dated 31 August 2004, set aside the decision of the Lao! A!ite!" #t !uled that theLao! A!ite! e!!ed in conside!ing p!e$enti$e suspension as a penalt%" &hile it is t!ue that p!e$enti$e suspension can !ipen

into const!ucti$e dis'issal (hen it goes e%ond the 30)da% 'a*i'u' pe!iod allo(ed % la(, such is not p!e$ailing in this

case since A!tificio i''ediatel% filed a co'plaint efo!e the lao! t!iunal" #t added that it (as A!tificio (ho te!'inated his

!elationship (ith !espondents (hen he as+ed fo! sepa!ation pa% in lieuof !einstate'ent although he has not %et eendis'issed" he NLRC cla!ified fu!the! that-

* * * &hile it is t!ue that p!e$enti$e suspension can !ipen into a const!ucti$e dis'issal (hen such goes

e%ond the 30 da% 'a*i'u' pe!iod allo(ale % la(, such is not p!e$ailing in the case at a! as it (asco'plainant (ho chose to file a co'plaint and ha$e due p!ocess efo!e the cou!ts of la(" #t (as

co'plainant (ho te!'inated the !elationship (ith !espondents % as+ing fo! sepa!ation pa% in lieu of

!einstate'ent (hen the fact of dis'issal has not %et happened" .!o' the docu'ents p!esented,

co'plainant (as put on p!e$enti$e suspension pending in$estigation of co'pan% $iolations (hich (e!esuppo!ted % docu'enta!% e$idences on /ul% 2, 2002" e (as set to e hea!d on August 12, 2002 ut

efo!e the !espondents could hea! his side, he filed this instant co'plaint on August , 2002, p!e)e'pting

the ad'inist!ati$e in$estigation unde!ta+en % !espondents

&hile (e !ecognie the !ule that in illegal dis'issal cases, the e'plo%e! ea!s the u!den of p!o$ing that the

te!'ination (as fo! a $alid o! autho!ied cause, in the p!esent case, ho(e$e!, the facts and the e$idence do not estalish

aprima faciecase that the e'plo%ee (as dis'issed f!o' e'plo%'ent" 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 dismissalfrom service" Logicall%, if the!e is no dis'issal, then the!e can e no uestion as to its legalit% o! illegalit%"

&ell)ent!enched is the p!inciple that in o!de! to estalish a case efo!e 5udicial and uasi)ad'inist!ati$e odies, it is

necessa!% that allegations 'ust e suppo!ted % sustantial e$idence"[26] 7ustantial e$idence is 'o!e than a 'e!e

scintilla" #t 'eans such !ele$ant e$idence as a !easonale 'ind 'ight accept as adeuate to suppo!t a conclusion"[2]

#n the p!esent case, the!e is ha!dl% an% e$idence on !eco!d so as to 'eet the uantu' of e$idence !eui!ed, i.e., sustantial

e$idence" 8etitione!9s clai' of illegal dis'issal is suppo!ted % no othe! than his o(n a!e, unco!!oo!ated and, thus, self)

se!$ing allegations, (hich a!e also incohe!ent, inconsistent and cont!adicto!%"

[26] Philippine Air Line v. Court of Appeals,:"R" No" 1;, 2;

8/9/2019 research2.doc

2/4

he !ule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it thus, petitione!s (e!e u!dened top!o$e thei! allegation that !espondents dis'issed the' f!o' thei! e'plo%'ent"It must be stressed thatthe evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive and convincing!he !ule that the e'plo%e! ea!s

the u!den of p!oof in illegal dis'issal cases finds no application he!e ecause the !espondents den%

ha$ing dis'issed the petitione!s"[33]

#nRufinaPatis Factory v. Alusitain,[34]this Cou!t too+ the occasion to e'phasie-

#t is a asic !ule in e$idence, ho(e$e!, that the u!den of p!oof is on the pa!t of the pa!t% (ho 'a+es the

allegations B eiincumbit probatio, ui !icit, non ui ne"at" 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

wea8ness of that of his opponent!9:6;

#t is t!ue that the Constitution affo!ds full p!otection to lao!, and that in light of this Constitutional 'andate, (e 'ust e

$igilant in st!i+ing do(n an% atte'pt of the 'anage'ent to e*ploit o! opp!ess the (o!+ing class" o(e$e!, it does not'ean that (e a!e ound to uphold the (o!+ing class in e$e!% lao! dispute !ought efo!e this Cou!t fo! ou! !esolution"

he la( in p!otecting the !ights of the e'plo%ees, autho!ies neithe! opp!ession no! self)dest!uction of the e'plo%e!" #t

should e 'ade clea! that (hen the la( tilts the scales of 5ustice in fa$o! of lao!, it is in !ecognition of the inhe!ent

econo'ic ineualit% et(een lao! and 'anage'ent" he intent is to alance the scales of 5ustice to put the t(o pa!ties on!elati$el% eual positions" he!e 'a% e cases (he!e the ci!cu'stances (a!!ant fa$o!ing lao! o$e! the inte!ests of

'anage'ent ut ne$e! should the scale e so tilted if the !esult is an in5ustice to the e'plo%e!"#ustitianemini ne"an!a est))

5ustice is to e denied to none"[3;] Scherin" $mployees Labor %nion &S$L%' v. Scherin" Plou"h Corporation, :"R" No" 1420;, 1= .e!ua!% 200, 41

7CRA ;6, ;"

[32] :"R" No" 1;6;;4, 4

8/9/2019 research2.doc

3/4

)here *as no !ismissal in this case, hence, there is no uestion that can beentertaine! re"ar!in" its le"ality or ille"ality.

As found % the Lao! A!ite!, the!e (as no e$idence that !espondents (e!e dis'issed no! (e!e the% p!e$ented f!o' !etu!ning tothei! (o!+" #t (as onl% !espondents9 unsustantiated conclusion that the% (e!e dis'issed" As a 'atte! of fact, !espondents could not

na'e the pa!ticula! pe!son (ho effected thei! dis'issal and unde! (hat pa!ticula! ci!cu'stances"

#nMachica v. Roosevelt Services Center, Inc.,[23]this Cou!t sustained the e'plo%e!Is denial as against the e'plo%eesIcatego!ical asse!tion of illegal dis'issal" #n so !uling, this Cou!t held that-

he !ule is that one (ho alleges a fact has the u!den of p!o$ing it thus, petitione!s (e!e u!dened to p!o$e thei!

allegation that !espondents dis'issed the' f!o' thei! e'plo%'ent" #t 'ust e st!essed that the e$idence to p!o$e thisfact 'ust e clea!, positi$e and con$incing" he !ule that the e'plo%e! ea!s the u!den of p!oof in illegal dis'issal

cases finds no application he!e ecause the !espondents den% ha$ing dis'issed the petitione!s"

#n this case, petitione!s (e!e ale to sho( that the% ne$e! dis'issed !espondents" As to the case of .e!nando,

8/9/2019 research2.doc

4/4

as 'ttorneys -ees and is expected to incur litigation Costs and expenses in the amount of P"+,+++$++$