Asuncion Vs NLRC

G.R. No.
129329 July 31, 2001
ESTER M. ASUNCION, petitioner,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Second Division, MABINI MEDICAL CLINIC
and DR. WILFRIDO JUCO, respondents.
KAPUNAN, J.:
Facts:
Ester M. Asuncion was employed as a bookkeeper/accountant of Mabini Medical Clinic. In a routine

inspection conducted by the DOLE upon the premises of the company, there were violations of the
labor standards discovered upon the disclosure of Asuncion’s documents.
On August 9, 1994, Juco, Medical Director of the Medical Clinic issued a memorandum to Asuncion
charging her with various offenses. She was required to answer the same within 2 days. After 3
days, she submitted her response. On the same day, she was dismissed on the ground of
disobedience of lawful orders and for her failure to submit her reply within the two-day period.
Asuncion filed for an illegal termination case before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment
declaring that the petitioner was illegally dismissed. On appeal, the NLRC ruled that petitioner had
admitted tardiness and absences though offering justifications for the infractions.
Issue:
Whether the NLRC erred in finding that Asuncion was dismissed for a just or authorized cause.
Ruling:
Yes, the NLRC erred in finding that Asuncion was dismissed for a just or authorized cause.It bears
stressing that a worker’s employment is property in the constitutional sense. He cannot be
deprived of his work without due process. In order for the dismissal to be valid, not only must it
be based on just cause supported by clear and convincing evidence, the employee must also be
given an opportunity to be heard and defend himself. It is the employer who has the burden of
proving that the dismissal was with just or authorized cause. The failure of the employer to
discharge this burden means that the dismissal is not justified and that the employee is entitled to
reinstatement and backwages.
In the case at bar, there is a paucity of evidence to establish the charges of absenteeism and
tardiness. The Court notes that the employer company submitted mere handwritten listing and
computer print-outs. The handwritten listing was not signed by the one who made the same. As
regards the print-outs, while the listing was computer generated, the entries of time and other
annotations were again handwritten and unsigned. The Court finds that the handwritten listing and
unsigned computer print-outs were unauthenticated and, hence, unreliable. Mere self-serving
evidence of which the listing and print-outs are of that nature should be rejected as evidence without
any rational probative value even in administrative proceedings.
The record is bereft of any showing that complainant was ever warned of her absences prior to her
dismissal on August 9, 1994. The alleged notices of her absences from August 17, until September
30, 1993, from October until November 27, 1993, from December 1, 1993 up to February 26, 1994
and the notice dated 31 May 1994 reminding complainant of her five (5) days absences, four (4)
half-days and tardiness for 582 minutes, fail to show that the notices were received by the
complainant. The allegation of the respondents that the complainant refused to receive the same is
self-serving and merits scant consideration.
The Court, likewise, takes note of the fact that the two-day period given to petitioner to explain and
answer the charges against her was most unreasonable, considering that she was charged with
several offenses and infractions (35 absences, 23 half-days and 108 tardiness), some of which were
allegedly committed almost a year before, not to mention the fact that the charges leveled against
her lacked particularity.
Apart from chronic absenteeism and habitual tardiness, petitioner was also made to answer for
loitering and wasting of company time, getting salary of an absent employee without acknowledging
or signing for it and disobedience and insubordination. Thus, the Labor Arbiter found that actually
petitioner tried to submit her explanation on August 11, 1994 or within the two-day period given her,
but private respondents prevented her from doing so by instructing their staff not to accept
complainant’s explanation, which was the reason why her explanation was submitted a day later.
The law mandates that every opportunity and assistance must be accorded to the employee by the
management to enable him to prepare adequately for his defense. In the case at bar, private
respondents cannot be gainsaid to have given petitioner the ample opportunity to answer the
charges leveled against her.
From the foregoing, there are serious doubts in the evidence on record as to the factual basis of the
charges against petitioner. These doubts shall be resolved in her favor in line with the policy under
the Labor Code to afford protection to labor and construe doubts in favor of labor. The consistent
rule is that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the
employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. The employer must
affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause.
Not having satisfied its burden of proof, we conclude that the employer dismissed the petitioner
without any just cause. Hence, the termination is illegal.

Asuncion Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asuncion Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asuncion Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

129329 July 31, 2001

ESTER M. ASUNCION, petitioner,

Ester M. Asuncion was employed as a bookkeeper/accountant of Mabini Medical Clinic. In a routine

You might also like