Lawyerly

GR No. 185255

2012-03-14

NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS v. DELFIN S. DESCALLAR

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Now, petitioners terminated his employment on the ground of loss of trust and confidence for supposedly committing acts inimical to the company's interests. However, in termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.[20] The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the employee's defense. If doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. Moreover, the quantum of proof required in determining the legality of an employee's dismissal is only substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.[21] Thus, it is incumbent upon petitioners to prove by substantial evidence that valid grounds exist for terminating respondent's employment on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. However, our review of the records of this case reveals that the CA correctly held that petitioners failed to discharge this burden.

GR No. 176085

2012-02-08

FEDERICO S. ROBOSA v. NLRC

BRION, J.

Additionally, De Luzuriaga points out that the petition raises only questions of facts which, procedurally, is not allowed in a petition for review on certiorari. Be this as it may, he submits that pursuant to Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. v. Tiamson,[16] factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality. He stresses that the CA committed no reversible error in not reviewing the NLRC's factual findings.

GR No. 176377

2011-11-16

FUNCTIONAL v. SAMUEL C. GRANFIL

PEREZ, J.

The rule is long and well settled that, in illegal dismissal cases like the one at bench, the burden of proof is upon the employer to show that the employee's termination from service is for a just and valid cause.[16] The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not the weakness of that adduced by the employee,[17] in keeping with the principle that the scales of justice should be tilted in favor of the latter in case of doubt in the evidence presented by them.[18] Often described as more than a mere scintilla,[19] the quantum of proof is substantial evidence which is understood as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[20] Failure of the employer to discharge the foregoing onus would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal.[21]

GR No. 150318

2010-11-22

PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY v. CA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The reason for the distinction lies with the respective official duties attending the execution of the different kinds of public instruments. Official duties are disputably presumed to have been regularly performed.[26] As regards affidavits, including Answers to Interrogatories which are required to be sworn to by the person making them,[27] the only portion thereof executed by the person authorized to take oaths is the jurat. The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed therefore applies only to the latter portion, wherein the notary public merely attests that the affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before him or her, on the date mentioned thereon. Thus, even though affidavits are notarized documents, we have ruled that affidavits, being self-serving, must be received with caution.[28]

GR No. 163091

2010-10-06

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES v. ANGEL U. DEL VILLAR

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The issue of whether the Company, in transferring Del Villar from the position of Transportation Services Manager to Staff Assistant to the Corporate Purchasing and Materials Control Manager, validly exercised its management prerogative or committed constructive dismissal, is a factual matter. It is a settled rule that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality. Moreover, in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court reviews only errors of law and not errors of facts. However, where there is divergence in the findings and conclusions of the NLRC, on the one hand, from those of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals, on the other, the Court is constrained to examine the evidence,[22] to determine which findings and conclusion are more conformable with the evidentiary facts. Hence, in the instant Petition, we embark on addressing not only the legal, but the factual issues as well.

GR No. 185122

2010-08-16

WENSHA SPA CENTER v. LORETA T. YUNG

MENDOZA, J.

The Court finds the LA ruling that states, "[a]bsent any proof submitted by the complainant, this office finds it more probable that the complainant was dismissed due to loss of trust and confidence,"[20] to be utterly erroneous as it is contrary to the applicable rules and pertinent jurisprudence. The onus of proving a valid dismissal rests on the employer, not on the employee.[21] It is the employer who bears the burden of proving that its dismissal of the employee is for a valid or authorized cause supported by substantial evidence. [22]

GR No. 182499

2009-10-02

CONCEPCION FAELDONIA v. TONG YAK GROCERIES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.[23] In Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. v. Tiamson, the Court ruled:The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the employee's defense. If doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. Moreover, the quantum of proof required in determining the legality of an employee's dismissal is only substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise. [24]

GR No. 167627

2008-10-10

AGUSAN DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. JOEL CAGAMPANG

QUISUMBING, J.

This doctrine was reiterated in Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. v. Tiamson [16] which held:In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause; failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal. The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the employee's defense. If doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. Moreover, the quantum of proof required in determining the legality of an employee's dismissal is only substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise. [17]

GR No. 174649

2008-09-26

LEOPOLDO JEREMIAS v. ESTATE OF LATE IRENE P. MARIANO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Ruben's evidence is likewise remotely substantial. The hand¬written letter dated 14 May 1989 allegedly instituting Ruben as tenant is unsigned. This Court has ruled that the unsigned handwritten documents and unsigned computer printouts, which areunauthenticated, are unreliable.[16] This is mere self-serving evidence, which should be rejected as evidence without any rational probative value, even in administrative proceedings.[17] The letter presented by Ruben, being unsigned, falls within this category of evidence. It hardly has any probative value; hence, it barely bolsters his hypothesis.

GR No. 175988

2007-08-24

MA. FININA E. VICENTE v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Petitioner argues that the employer bears the burden of proof that the resignation is voluntary and not the product of coercion or intimidation. We agree that in termination cases, burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.[19] In Mobile Protective & Detective Agency v. Ompad,[20] the Court ruled that should an employer interpose the defense of resignation, as in the present case, it is still incumbent upon respondent company to prove that the employee voluntarily resigned.

GR NO. 169494

2007-03-14

CABALEN MANAGEMENT CO. v. JESUS P. QUIAMBAO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

To establish a just or authorized cause for dismissal, substantial evidence[16] or "such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion" is required.[17] Further required is that an employee sought to be dismissed must be served two written notices before the termination of his employment. The first notice must apprise him of the particular acts or omissions upon which his dismissal is grounded; the second, to inform him of the employer's decision to terminate his employment.[18] While the failure of the employer to comply with these notice requirements does not make the dismissal illegal as long as a just or authorized cause has been proved, it renders the employer liable for payment of damages because of the violation of the worker's right to statutory due process.[19]

GR NO. 167177

2006-09-27

ESTRELLA S. BAÑEZ v. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Clearly, Bañez was given sufficient opportunity to refute the charges against her and confront respondents' witnesses. Parties to a labor case may ask for a hearing, but such is not a matter of right. This is because "the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side. A formal or trial type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due process, the requirements of which are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy."[44] The rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies like the NLRC where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers only.[45] It was thus within Labor Arbiter Garduque's absolute discretion whether or not to set the case for trial on the merits.

	GR No. 185255 2012-03-14	NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS v. DELFIN S. DESCALLAR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Now, petitioners terminated his employment on the ground of loss of trust and confidence for supposedly committing acts inimical to the company's interests. However, in termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.[20] The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the employee's defense. If doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. Moreover, the quantum of proof required in determining the legality of an employee's dismissal is only substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.[21] Thus, it is incumbent upon petitioners to prove by substantial evidence that valid grounds exist for terminating respondent's employment on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. However, our review of the records of this case reveals that the CA correctly held that petitioners failed to discharge this burden.
	GR No. 176085 2012-02-08	FEDERICO S. ROBOSA v. NLRC BRION, J.
Additionally, De Luzuriaga points out that the petition raises only questions of facts which, procedurally, is not allowed in a petition for review on certiorari. Be this as it may, he submits that pursuant to Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. v. Tiamson,[16] factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality. He stresses that the CA committed no reversible error in not reviewing the NLRC's factual findings.
	GR No. 176377 2011-11-16	FUNCTIONAL v. SAMUEL C. GRANFIL PEREZ, J.
The rule is long and well settled that, in illegal dismissal cases like the one at bench, the burden of proof is upon the employer to show that the employee's termination from service is for a just and valid cause.[16] The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not the weakness of that adduced by the employee,[17] in keeping with the principle that the scales of justice should be tilted in favor of the latter in case of doubt in the evidence presented by them.[18] Often described as more than a mere scintilla,[19] the quantum of proof is substantial evidence which is understood as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[20] Failure of the employer to discharge the foregoing onus would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal.[21]
	GR No. 150318 2010-11-22	PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY v. CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The reason for the distinction lies with the respective official duties attending the execution of the different kinds of public instruments. Official duties are disputably presumed to have been regularly performed.[26] As regards affidavits, including Answers to Interrogatories which are required to be sworn to by the person making them,[27] the only portion thereof executed by the person authorized to take oaths is the jurat. The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed therefore applies only to the latter portion, wherein the notary public merely attests that the affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before him or her, on the date mentioned thereon. Thus, even though affidavits are notarized documents, we have ruled that affidavits, being self-serving, must be received with caution.[28]
	GR No. 163091 2010-10-06	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES v. ANGEL U. DEL VILLAR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The issue of whether the Company, in transferring Del Villar from the position of Transportation Services Manager to Staff Assistant to the Corporate Purchasing and Materials Control Manager, validly exercised its management prerogative or committed constructive dismissal, is a factual matter. It is a settled rule that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality. Moreover, in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court reviews only errors of law and not errors of facts. However, where there is divergence in the findings and conclusions of the NLRC, on the one hand, from those of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals, on the other, the Court is constrained to examine the evidence,[22] to determine which findings and conclusion are more conformable with the evidentiary facts. Hence, in the instant Petition, we embark on addressing not only the legal, but the factual issues as well.
	GR No. 185122 2010-08-16	WENSHA SPA CENTER v. LORETA T. YUNG MENDOZA, J.
The Court finds the LA ruling that states, "[a]bsent any proof submitted by the complainant, this office finds it more probable that the complainant was dismissed due to loss of trust and confidence,"[20] to be utterly erroneous as it is contrary to the applicable rules and pertinent jurisprudence. The onus of proving a valid dismissal rests on the employer, not on the employee.[21] It is the employer who bears the burden of proving that its dismissal of the employee is for a valid or authorized cause supported by substantial evidence. [22]
	GR No. 182499 2009-10-02	CONCEPCION FAELDONIA v. TONG YAK GROCERIES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.[23] In Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. v. Tiamson, the Court ruled:The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the employee's defense. If doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. Moreover, the quantum of proof required in determining the legality of an employee's dismissal is only substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise. [24]
	GR No. 167627 2008-10-10	AGUSAN DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. JOEL CAGAMPANG QUISUMBING, J.
This doctrine was reiterated in Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. v. Tiamson [16] which held:In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause; failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal. The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the employee's defense. If doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. Moreover, the quantum of proof required in determining the legality of an employee's dismissal is only substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise. [17]
	GR No. 174649 2008-09-26	LEOPOLDO JEREMIAS v. ESTATE OF LATE IRENE P. MARIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Ruben's evidence is likewise remotely substantial. The hand¬written letter dated 14 May 1989 allegedly instituting Ruben as tenant is unsigned. This Court has ruled that the unsigned handwritten documents and unsigned computer printouts, which areunauthenticated, are unreliable.[16] This is mere self-serving evidence, which should be rejected as evidence without any rational probative value, even in administrative proceedings.[17] The letter presented by Ruben, being unsigned, falls within this category of evidence. It hardly has any probative value; hence, it barely bolsters his hypothesis.
	GR No. 175988 2007-08-24	MA. FININA E. VICENTE v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Petitioner argues that the employer bears the burden of proof that the resignation is voluntary and not the product of coercion or intimidation. We agree that in termination cases, burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.[19] In Mobile Protective & Detective Agency v. Ompad,[20] the Court ruled that should an employer interpose the defense of resignation, as in the present case, it is still incumbent upon respondent company to prove that the employee voluntarily resigned.
	GR NO. 169494 2007-03-14	CABALEN MANAGEMENT CO. v. JESUS P. QUIAMBAO CARPIO MORALES, J.
To establish a just or authorized cause for dismissal, substantial evidence[16] or "such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion" is required.[17] Further required is that an employee sought to be dismissed must be served two written notices before the termination of his employment. The first notice must apprise him of the particular acts or omissions upon which his dismissal is grounded; the second, to inform him of the employer's decision to terminate his employment.[18] While the failure of the employer to comply with these notice requirements does not make the dismissal illegal as long as a just or authorized cause has been proved, it renders the employer liable for payment of damages because of the violation of the worker's right to statutory due process.[19]
	GR NO. 167177 2006-09-27	ESTRELLA S. BAÑEZ v. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Clearly, Bañez was given sufficient opportunity to refute the charges against her and confront respondents' witnesses. Parties to a labor case may ask for a hearing, but such is not a matter of right. This is because "the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side. A formal or trial type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due process, the requirements of which are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy."[44] The rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies like the NLRC where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers only.[45] It was thus within Labor Arbiter Garduque's absolute discretion whether or not to set the case for trial on the merits.

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. ANTONIO Q. TIAMSON