Case Summary (G.R. No. 191567)
Key Dates
Employment began: August 16, 1993.
DOLE inspection revealing labor standards issues: May 1994.
Memorandum charging petitioner: August 9, 1994 (two-day period to explain).
Petitioner’s explanatory letter: August 11/12, 1994 (submitted August 12 morning).
Termination letter: August 12, 1994.
Labor Arbiter decision declaring illegal dismissal: May 15, 1996.
NLRC decision reversing Labor Arbiter: November 29, 1996; denial of reconsideration: February 19, 1997.
Supreme Court decision: July 31, 2001.
Applicable constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision after 1990).
Applicable Law and Legal Principles
- Employment recognized as a property interest under the Constitution; dismissal requires both just cause and observance of due process.
- Employer bears the burden of proving that dismissal was for just or authorized cause; failure to meet this burden entitles the employee to reinstatement and backwages.
- Administrative proceedings are afforded procedural liberality but still require evidence with a modicum of admissibility and rational probative value; self-serving, unauthenticated documents (unsigned listings, unsigned computer printouts) lack probative value.
- Labor Code policies (Arts. 3 and 4) require protection of labor and resolving doubts in favor of employees. Labor Code Article 279 governs reinstatement and backwages for illegal dismissal.
Factual Background — Inspection and Charges
A DOLE inspection in May 1994, prompted by petitioner’s disclosure, uncovered labor standards violations at the clinic (e.g., non-coverage under SSS), which the clinic was directed to correct. On August 9, 1994, Dr. Juco issued a memorandum accusing petitioner of chronic absenteeism (35 absences, 23 half-days since Aug. 1993), habitual tardiness (108 instances), loitering, taking another’s salary, and insubordination (refusal to sign memos), and required an explanation within two days.
Termination Procedure and Petitioner’s Response
Petitioner attempted to respond within the allotted period (submitting an explanation on the morning of August 12, 1994) but was dismissed by letter dated August 12, 1994 on grounds of disobedience and failure to meet the two-day deadline. Petitioner then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Labor Arbiter’s Findings and Rationale
The Labor Arbiter found dismissal illegal. Key reasons: private respondents failed to produce the primary documentary evidence (time cards, logbooks, or the record book referenced in the termination notice) that would substantiate chronic absenteeism and tardiness. The Arbiter applied the presumption that failure to present such documents (which were in the employer’s possession) suggested intentional suppression. The Arbiter also noted an agreed arrangement that petitioner did not work Saturdays, which would explain many alleged absences. Unsigned handwritten lists and computer printouts were deemed insufficient and easily manufactured.
NLRC’s Decision and Its Basis
The NLRC agreed that documentary proof was not properly presented but relied on the petitioner’s explanatory letter as an admission of absenteeism/tardiness and concluded there was sufficient ground for dismissal. The NLRC nonetheless awarded petitioner three months’ pay as a penalty for procedural defects in due process but dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint on the merits.
Supreme Court’s Standard of Review and Authority to Reexamine Facts
Because the Labor Arbiter’s factual findings conflicted with those of the NLRC, the Supreme Court reviewed the matter. The Court emphasized that a disagreement between administrative fact-findings permits higher judicial scrutiny. Given that employment is constitutionally protected property and that dismissal requires clear and convincing evidence of just cause plus observance of due process, the Court reaffirmed that the employer bears the burden to prove the factual basis for dismissal.
Evidentiary Analysis — Authenticity, Best Evidence, and Probative Value
The Court held that the employer’s evidence (unsigned handwritten lists and unsigned computer-generated printouts) lacked authentication and probative value, and therefore could not sustain the charges. The referenced record book — the best evidence expressly relied upon in the termination notice — was never produced despite being in the employer’s possession; its non-presentation raised a presumption of suppression and cast serious doubt on the factual basis of the charges. The Court applied prior precedent establishing that administrative flexibility does not permit reliance on documents devoid of rational probative value.
Admission Argument and Contractual Arrangement on Saturdays
The NLRC’s reliance on the petitioner’s August 11 letter as an admission of absenteeism was rejected. The petitioner’s letter indicated many absences were on Saturdays and referred to an agreement that her workweek was Monday–Friday. The employer failed to deny the existence of this arrangement or to present evidence to the contrary, undermining the NLRC’s characterization of the letter as an admission sufficient to justify dismissal.
Due Process and Opportunity to Be Heard
The Court found the two-day period given to answer extensive charges (35 absences over nearly a year, 23 half-days, 108 instances of tardiness, plus other discrete accusations) to be unreasonable. The Labor Arbiter’s factual finding that petitioner’s timely attempt to submit an explanation was prevented by clinic staff (forcing submission a day late) was credited. Th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 191567)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by Ester M. Asuncion before the Supreme Court seeking to set aside: (a) the Decision dated November 29, 1996, and (b) the Resolution dated February 20, 1997 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Second Division, in NLRC CA. 011188, which reversed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated May 15, 1996.
- Labor Arbiter Manuel Caday rendered judgment on May 15, 1996 declaring petitioner illegally dismissed and ordering reinstatement with backwages and damages.
- NLRC issued a decision dated November 29, 1996 vacating and setting aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision and dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal for lack of merit, but ordering payment of three months salary as penalty for non-observance of due process.
- NLRC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated February 19/20, 1997.
- Supreme Court (First Division) decision authored by Justice Kapunan dated July 31, 2001 (G.R. No. 129329; 414 Phil. 329) reviews and reverses the NLRC decision and reinstates the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
Facts
- Petitioner Ester M. Asuncion was employed as an accountant/bookkeeper by Mabini Medical Clinic beginning August 16, 1993.
- In May 1994, officials of the NCR-Industrial Relations Division of DOLE conducted a routine inspection and, upon disclosure by petitioner of certain documents, discovered violations of labor standards law (e.g., non-coverage from SSS of employees). The clinic was made to correct these violations.
- On August 9, 1994, Medical Director Dr. Wilfrido Juco issued a memorandum to petitioner charging her with:
- "Chronic Absentism (sic) - You have incurred since Aug. 1993 up to the present 35 absences and 23 half-days."
- "Habitual tardiness - You have late (sic) for 108 times. As shown on the record book."
- "Loitering and wasting of company time - on several occasions and witnessed by several employees."
- "Getting salary of an absent employee without acknowledging or signing for it."
- "Disobedience and insubordination - continued refusal to sign memos given to you."
- Petitioner was required to explain within two (2) days why she should not be terminated.
- Petitioner submitted a response three days later, on the morning of August 12, 1994.
- On August 12, 1994, respondent Dr. Juco, through a letter dated August 12, 1994, dismissed petitioner on grounds of disobedience of lawful orders and failure to submit reply within the two-day period.
- Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal termination before the NLRC.
Labor Arbiter’s Findings and Ruling (May 15, 1996)
- Labor Arbiter found petitioner was illegally dismissed.
- Employer failed to prove allegations of chronic absenteeism: no time cards, logbooks, or record book were presented despite those documents being in employer’s possession and specifically mentioned in the notice of termination.
- Non-presentation of such documents gave rise to presumption of intentional suppression, since they would be adverse to private respondents’ claim.
- Petitioner’s absences were found to be with the conformity of private respondents since both parties had agreed she would not report to work on Saturdays.
- Handwritten listing of absences/tardiness and computerized print-outs were deemed inadequate because they could be easily manufactured.
- Decretal relief ordered: immediate reinstatement without loss of seniority; backwages of P73,500.00 as of date of decision until reinstatement; P20,000.00 moral damages; P20,000.00 exemplary damages; and attorney’s fees equal to 10% of the recoverable award.
NLRC Decision and Reasoning (November 29, 1996)
- NLRC agreed with Labor Arbiter insofar as private respondents failed to present evidence relative to petitioner’s absences and tardiness (i.e., absence of time records).
- NLRC nonetheless ruled petitioner had admitted the tardiness and absences though she offered justifications for them; relied on petitioner’s letter dated August 11, 1994 as an admission.
- NLRC vacated and set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision and dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal for lack of merit.
- NLRC ordered respondents Mabini Medical Clinic and Dr. Wilfrido Juco to pay petitioner the equivalent of her three (3) months’ salary as penalty for non-observance of petitioner’s right to due process.
Petitioner’s Letter and NLRC’s Reliance
- NLRC relied on petitioner’s August 11, 1994 letter quoted in the record:
- "I am quite surprised why I have incurred 35 absences since August 1993 up to the present. I can only surmise that Saturdays were not included in my work week at your clinic. If you will please recall, per agreement with you, my work days at your clinic is from Monday to Friday without Saturday work. As to my other supposed absences, I believe that said absences were authorized and therefore cannot be considered as absences which need not be explained (sic). It is also extremely difficult to understand why it is only now that I am charged to explain alleged absences incurred way back August 1993."
- NLRC treated this letter as an admission of habitual absenteeism and chronic tardiness.
Supreme Court’s Standard of Review and Rationale for Examination
- Court recognizes general tenet: