Labor Law Case Digest:

REMEGIO E. BURNEA v SECURITY TRADING CORPORATION, NONPAREIL INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT AND CARGO SERVICES, INC., FAR EASTERN KNITTING CORPORATION, JOSE CHING, and ESPERANZA CHING

Principle:

In cases of illegal dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proof to prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. However, it is well to clarify that before the employer bears such burden, it is imperative for the employee to first establish by substantial evidence that he/she was indeed dismissed from employment. Absent such dismissal, there could be no question as to its legality or illegality.

Facts:

Petitioner claimed that in February 2005, respondents-spouses (Spouses Ching) hired him as a construction worker for their company, respondent Security Trading Corporation (STC). Thereafter, upon completion of STC’s construction project, petitioner was hired as stay-in security guard of STC’s premises and was eventually transferred to Far Eastern Corporation, a company also owned by spouses Ching, to protect and secure the said company’s property.

Now, because trust reposed upon him by spouses Ching, petitioner was issued an Authority to Sell the Far Eastern’s property that he was guarding which was later sold to Nonpareil. After he was paid his commission, petitioner was no longer paid his salary for the period of November 1-15, 2013 and was purportedly told by Far Eastern’s management that his services were no longer needed and to just go back to his province.

Aggrieved with the foregoing developments, petitioner initially filed on September 25, 2014 a complaint against Far Eastern via Single-Entry Approach (SENA) before the Regional Conciliation and Mediation Board-NCR for money claims, non-payment/underpayment of wages, non-payment of overtime pay, night shift differential pay, service incentive leave, holiday pay, SSS, Pag-IBIG, PhilHealth, unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, separation pay, and payment of labor standard law benefits (SENA Complaint).

The SENA Complaint was, however, deemed closed and terminated due to petitioner’s filing of a similar complaint before the NLRC against respondents STC, Nonpareil, Far Eastern, and spouses Ching for underpayment of salary/wages and 13th month pay, and non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day premium, service incentive leave, separation pay, ECOLA, and night shift differential (NLRC Complaint).

Notably, while petitioner included the payment of separation pay in the causes of action in the NLRC complaint, he failed to include a cause of action for illegal dismissal. Nonetheless, a reading of petitioner’s Position Paper would show that he specifically argued that he was illegally dismissed, and hence, entitled to, among others, separation pay.

Issue:

Whether the petitioner has been illegally dismissed from employment, and hence, entitled to, among others, separation pay

Ruling:

No. The petitioner is not illegally dismissed, absent showing substantial evidence.

The Court ruled that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of proof to prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. However, it is well to clarify that before the employer bears such burden, it is imperative for the employee to first establish by substantial evidence that he/she was indeed dismissed from employment. Absent such dismissal, there could be no question as to its legality or illegality.

Here, other than petitioner’s self-serving allegation that he was terminated from work and told to go back to his province, no evidence was presented to establish the same. In fact, petitioner failed to identify the person from Far Eastern who purportedly terminated his services. It bears stressing that a party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence, for any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand without offending due process, which petitioner failed to discharge. Moreover, since he was merely transferred by STC to guard Far Eastern’s property, its sale to Nonpareil should have prompted petitioner to return to STC, his original employer, which he failed to show. When there is a claim of dismissal, much more illegal, the fact of dismissal must be established by positive and overt acts of an employer indicating the intention to dismiss before the burden is shifted to the employer to prove that the dismissal was legal.

Evidently, absent substantial proof, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion that he was dismissed or prevented from reporting for work by respondents, petitioner’s claim of illegal dismissal cannot stand.

Consequently, having ruled out the claim of illegal dismissal and the issue of separation pay arising as a consequence thereof, petitioner’s claim for payment of the same must necessarily be denied. In the same vein, there is likewise no legal basis to award damages to petitioner absent any showing of malice or bad faith on the part of respondents.