Facts:

Ester M. Asuncion (petitioner) was employed as an accountant/bookkeeper at Mabini Medical Clinic (respondent) under the supervision of Dr. Wilfrido Juco, the Medical Director. Her employment began on August 16, 1993. In May 1994, during a routine inspection by officials from the Department of Labor and Employment, petitioner revealed violations of the labor standards law, specifically relating to the non-coverage of employees by the Social Security System (SSS). As a result, the respondent was mandated to correct these violations. On August 9, 1994, Dr. Juco issued a memorandum to Asuncion accusing her of various infractions, including chronic absenteeism (35 absences and 23 half-days), habitual tardiness (108 instances), wasting company time, unauthorized payment collection, and disobedience for not signing several memos. Despite Asuncion’s submission of an explanation three days later, she was dismissed on the same day for failing to submit her reply within the two-day window

...

Facts:

Employment Background and Inspection

• Petitioner Ester M. Asuncion was employed as an accountant/bookkeeper by Mabini Medical Clinic since August 16, 1993.
• In May 1994, an inspection by the NCR-Industrial Relations Division of the Department of Labor and Employment uncovered violations, including non-coverage of employees under the SSS, necessitating corrective action by the company.

Charges and Disciplinary Action

• On August 9, 1994, Medical Director Dr. Wilfrido Juco issued a memorandum to petitioner charging her with:
• Chronic absenteeism – accounting for 35 absences and 23 half-days since August 1993.
• Habitual tardiness – recorded 108 instances of lateness as per the record book.
• Loitering and wasting company time.
• Obtaining salary credit for an absent employee without proper acknowledgment.
• Disobedience and insubordination – including refusal to sign memos.
• Petitioner was given a two-day period to explain her side regarding the charges.

Submission of Explanation and Dismissal

• Petitioner submitted her explanation three days later, on the morning of August 12, 1994.
• On the same day, through a letter, Dr. Juco dismissed her on grounds of disobedience and failure to timely respond.

Initial Labor Arbiter Decision

• On May 15, 1996, Labor Arbiter Manuel Caday declared the dismissal illegal.
• The Arbiter ruled that:
• The private respondents failed to prove chronic absenteeism due to non-presentation of time cards, logbooks, or the record book.
• The absence of these documents implied they were intentionally withheld, as they would have contradicted the employer’s claim.
• Petitioner’s absences were authorized based on a prior agreement that excluded Saturdays from her work schedule.
• Handwritten lists and computer-generated print-outs were insufficient and could easily be fabricated.
• The ruling ordered:
• Reinstatement of petitioner to her former position without loss of seniority.
• Payment of backwages, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

NLRC Ruling and Reversal

• On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ruling in favor of the dismissal.
• Although acknowledging the lack of evidence on absenteeism and tardiness, the NLRC relied on petitioner’s alleged admission in a letter.
• The NLRC’s decision dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal, instead ordering the payment of three months’ salary as a penalty for the non-observance of due process.

Petition for Certiorari and Court’s Review

• Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 challenging the NLRC decision.
• The Court was prompted to review the factual findings due to the discrepancy between the Labor Arbiter’s and the NLRC’s conclusions.
• The petition raised the issue of whether the dismissal was justified and supported by evidence, stressing the constitutional protection of employment and due process rights.

Issue:

Sufficiency and Reliability of Evidence

• Whether the evidence (handwritten listings and unsigned computer print-outs) presented by the employer was sufficient to prove chronic absenteeism and habitual tardiness.
• Whether the absence of the official record book, which was mentioned as the basis for the charges, undermines the employer’s claim.

Due Process in Termination

• Whether petitioner was given a fair and adequate opportunity to defend herself against the charges.
• Whether the two-day period to respond, compounded by the employer’s conduct restricting her explanation, complied with the requirements of due process.

Justification of Dismissal

• Whether petitioner’s alleged admissions in her letter amounted to acceptance of the charges.
• Whether there was sufficient clear and convincing evidence to justify the dismissal as being for a just or authorized cause.

Evidentiary Standards in Administrative Proceedings

• Whether the procedural flexibility in administrative cases permits the use of unauthenticated documents.
• How the evidentiary standards (the best evidence rule) apply in determining the veracity of the employer’s claims in this case.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)