G.R. No.

174585               October 19, 2007 Petitioner was then asked by HR Manager Cueva to sign a resignation
letter and also remarked that whether or not petitioner would resign
willingly, he was no longer considered an employee of private
FEDERICO M. LEDESMA, JR., Petitioner,
respondent. All these events transpired in the presence of VP for
vs.
Administration Ty, who even convinced petitioner to just voluntarily
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC-SECOND
resign with the assurance that he would still be given separation pay.
DIVISION) HONS. RAUL T. AQUINO, VICTORIANO R.
Petitioner did not yet sign the resignation letter replying that he
CALAYCAY and ANGELITA A. GACUTAN ARE THE
needed time to think over the offers. When petitioner went back to
COMMISSIONERS, PHILIPPINE NAUTICAL TRAINING INC.,
private respondent’s training site in Dasmariñas, Cavite, to get his
ATTY. HERNANI FABIA, RICKY TY, PABLO MANOLO, C. DE
bicycle, he was no longer allowed by the guard to enter the premises.9
LEON and TREENA CUEVA, Respondents.

On the following day, petitioner immediately went to St. Dominic

DECISION
Medical Center for a drug test and he was found negative for any drug
substance. With his drug result on hand, petitioner went back to
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: private respondent’s main office in Manila to talk to VP for
Administration Ty and HR Manager Cueva and to show to them his
This a Petition for Review on Certiorari  under Rule 45 of the Revised drug test result. Petitioner then told VP for Administration Ty and HR
Rules of Court, filed by petitioner Federico Ledesma, Jr., seeking to Manager Cueva that since his drug test proved that he was not guilty
reverse and set aside the Decision,1 dated 28 May 2005, and the of the drug use charge against him, he decided to continue to work for
Resolution,2 dated 7 September 2006, of the Court of Appeals in CA- the private respondent.10
G.R. SP No. 79724. The appellate court, in its assailed Decision and
Resolution, affirmed the Decision dated 15 April 2003, and Resolution On 2 December 2000, petitioner reported for work but he was no
dated 9 June 2003, of the National Labor Relations Commission longer allowed to enter the training site for he was allegedly banned
(NLRC), dismissing petitioner’s complaint for illegal dismissal and therefrom according to the guard on duty. This incident prompted the
ordering the private respondent Philippine National Training Institute petitioner to file the complaint for illegal dismissal against the private
(PNTI) to reinstate petitioner to his former position without loss of respondent before the Labor Arbiter.
seniority rights.
For its part, private respondent countered that petitioner was never
The factual and procedural antecedents of the instant petition are as dismissed from employment but merely served a Notice to Explain why
follows: no disciplinary action should be filed against him in view of his
superior’s report that he was suspected of using illegal drugs. Instead
On 4 December 1998, petitioner was employed as a bus/service driver of filing an answer to the said notice, however, petitioner prematurely
by the private respondent on probationary basis, as evidenced by his lodged a complaint for illegal dismissal against private respondent
appointment.3 As such, he was required to report at private before the Labor Arbiter.11
respondent’s training site in Dasmariñas, Cavite, under the direct
supervision of its site administrator, Pablo Manolo de Leon (de Leon).4 Private respondent likewise denied petitioner’s allegations that it
banned the latter from entering private respondent’s premises. Rather,
On 11 November 2000, petitioner filed a complaint against de Leon for it was petitioner who failed or refused to report to work after he was
allegedly abusing his authority as site administrator by using the made to explain his alleged drug use. Indeed, on 3 December 2000,
private respondent’s vehicles and other facilities for personal ends. In petitioner was able to claim at the training site his salary for the period
the same complaint, petitioner also accused de Leon of immoral of 16-30 November 2000, as evidenced by a copy of the pay voucher
conduct allegedly carried out within the private respondent’s premises. bearing petitioner’s signature. Petitioner’s accusation that he was no
A copy of the complaint was duly received by private respondent’s longer allowed to enter the training site was further belied by the fact
Chief Accountant, Nita Azarcon (Azarcon).5 that he was able to claim his 13th month pay thereat on 9 December
2000, supported by a copy of the pay voucher signed by petitioner.12

On 27 November 2000, de Leon filed a written report against the

petitioner addressed to private respondent’s Vice-President for On 26 July 2002, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision,13 in favor of
Administration, Ricky Ty (Ty), citing his suspected drug use. the petitioner declaring illegal his separation from employment. The
Labor Arbiter, however, did not order petitioner’s reinstatement for the
same was no longer practical, and only directed private respondent to
In view of de Leon’s report, private respondent’s Human Resource pay petitioner backwages. The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter’s
Manager, Trina Cueva (HR Manager Cueva), on 29 November 2000, Decision reads:
served a copy of a Notice to petitioner requiring him to explain within
24 hours why no disciplinary action should be imposed on him for
allegedly violating Section 14, Article IV of the private respondent’s WHEREFORE, premises considered, the dismissal of the [petitioner] is
Code of Conduct.6 herein declared to be illegal. [Private respondent] is directed to pay the
complainant backwages and separation pay in the total amount of One
Hundred Eighty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty One Pesos and
On 3 December 2000, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal Fifty Three Centavos (₱184, 861.53).14
against private respondent before the Labor Arbiter.
Both parties questioned the Labor Arbiter’s Decision before the NLRC.
In his Position Paper,7 petitioner averred that in view of the complaint Petitioner assailed the portion of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision denying
he filed against de Leon for his abusive conduct as site administrator, his prayer for reinstatement, and arguing that the doctrine of strained
the latter retaliated by falsely accusing petitioner as a drug user. VP for relations is applied only to confidential employees and his position as a
Administration Ty, however, instead of verifying the veracity of de driver was not covered by such prohibition.15 On the other hand,
Leon’s report, readily believed his allegations and together with HR private respondent controverted the Labor Arbiter’s finding that
Manager Cueva, verbally dismissed petitioner from service on 29 petitioner was illegally dismissed from employment, and insisted that
November 2000. petitioner was never dismissed from his job but failed to report to work
after he was asked to explain regarding his suspected drug
Petitioner alleged that he was asked to report at private respondent’s use.161âwphi1
main office in España, Manila, on 29 November 2000. There, petitioner
was served by HR Manager Cueva a copy of the Notice to Explain On 15 April 2003, the NLRC granted the appeal raised by both parties
together with the copy of de Leon’s report citing his suspected drug and reversed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision.17 The NLRC declared that
use. After he was made to receive the copies of the said notice and petitioner failed to establish the fact of dismissal for his claim that he
report, HR Manager Cueva went inside the office of VP for was banned from entering the training site was rendered impossible by
Administration Ty. After a while, HR Manager Cueva came out of the the fact that he was able to subsequently claim his salary and 13th
office with VP for Administration Ty. To petitioner’s surprise, HR month pay. Petitioner’s claim for reinstatement was, however, granted
Manager Cueva took back the earlier Notice to Explain given to him by the NLRC. The decretal part of the NLRC Decision reads:
and flatly declared that there was no more need for the petitioner to
explain since his drug test result revealed that he was positive for
drugs. When petitioner, however, asked for a copy of the said drug WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision under review is,
test result, HR Manager Cueva told him that it was with the company’s hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another entered, DISMISSING
president, but she would also later claim that the drug test result was the complaint for lack of merit.
already with the proper authorities at Camp Crame.8
[Petitioner] is however, ordered REINSTATED to his former position
without loss of seniority rights, but WITHOUT BACKWAGES.18
The Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner was likewise denied the contrary. Petitioner’s averments of what transpired inside private
by the NLRC in its Resolution dated 29 August 2003.19 respondent’s main office on 29 November 2000, when he was allegedly
already dismissed from service, and his claim that he was effectively
banned from private respondent’s premises are belied by the fact that
The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s Petition for Certiorari under
he was able to claim his salary for the period of 16-30 November 2000
Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, and affirmed the NLRC Decision
at private respondent’s training site.
giving more credence to private respondent’s stance that petitioner
was not dismissed from employment, as it is more in accord with the
evidence on record and the attendant circumstances of the instant Petitioner, therefore, is now before this Court assailing the Decisions
case.20 Similarly ill-fated was petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, handed down by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, and insisting that
which was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution issued on 7 he was illegally dismissed from his employment. Petitioner argues that
September 2006. 21 his receipt of his earned salary for the period of 16-30 November 2000,
and his 13th month pay, is neither inconsistent with nor a negation of
his allegation of illegal dismissal. Petitioner maintains that he received
Hence, this instant Petition for Review on Certiorari22 under Rule 45 of
his salary and benefit only from the guardhouse, for he was already
the Revised Rules of Court,  filed by petitioner assailing the foregoing
banned from the work premises.
Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution on the following grounds:

We are not persuaded.

I.

Well-entrenched is the principle that in order to establish a case before

WHETHER, THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A
judicial and quasi-administrative bodies, it is necessary that allegations
MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS, AND THE ASSAILED
must be supported by substantial evidence.28 Substantial evidence is
DECISION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON
more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a
RECORD. PETITIONER’S DISMISSAL WAS ESTABLISHED BY
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.29
THE UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCES ON RECORD, WHICH
WERE MISAPPRECIATED BY PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC,
AND HAD THESE BEEN CONSIDERED THE INEVITABLE In the present case, there is hardly any evidence on record so as to
CONCLUSION WOULD BE THE AFFIRMATION OF THE meet the quantum of evidence required, i.e., substantial evidence.
LABOR ARBITER’S DECISION FINDING ILLEGAL DISMISSAL Petitioner’s claim of illegal dismissal is supported by no other than his
own bare, uncorroborated and, thus, self-serving allegations, which are
also  incoherent, inconsistent and contradictory.
II.

Petitioner himself narrated that when his presence was requested on

WHETHER, THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS SUBVERTED DUE
29 November 2000 at the private respondent’s main office where he
PROCESS OF LAW WHEN IT DID NOT CONSIDER THE
was served with the Notice to Explain his superior’s report on his
EVIDENCE ON RECORD SHOWING THAT THERE WAS NO
suspected drug use, VP for Administration Ty offered him separation
JUST CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL AS PETITIONER IS NOT A
pay if he will just voluntarily resign from employment. While we do not
DRUG USER AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
condone such an offer, neither can we construe that petitioner was
THIS GROUND FOR DISMISSAL.
dismissed at that instance. Petitioner was only being given the option
to either resign and receive his separation pay or not to resign but face
III. the possible disciplinary charges against him. The final decision,
therefore, whether to voluntarily resign or to continue working still,
WHETHER, THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED ultimately rests with the petitioner. In fact, by petitoner’s own
REVERSIBLE ERROR OF LAW IN NOT FINDING THAT admission, he requested from VP for Administration Ty more time to
RESPONDENTS SUBVERTED PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO DUE think over the offer.
PROCESS OF THE LAW.23
Moreover, the petitioner alleged that he was not allowed to enter the
Before we delve into the merits of this case, it is best to stress that the training site by the guard on duty who told him that he was already
issues raised by petitioner in this instant petition are factual in nature banned from the premises. Subsequently, however, petitioner admitted
which is not within the office of a Petition for Review.24 The raison in his Supplemental Affidavit that he was able to return to the said site
d’etre  for this rule is that, this Court is not a trier of facts and does not on 3 December 2000, to claim his 16-30 November 2000 salary, and
routinely undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by again on 9 December 2000, to receive his 13th month pay. The fact
the contending parties for the factual findings of the labor officials who alone that he was able to return to the training site to claim his salary
have acquired expertise in their own fields are accorded not only and benefits raises doubt as to his purported ban from the premises.
respect but even finality, and are binding upon this Court.25
Finally, petitioner’s stance that he was dismissed by private respondent
However, when the findings of the Labor Arbiter contradict those of was further weakened with the presentation of private respondent’s
the NLRC, departure from the general rule is warranted, and this Court payroll bearing petitioner’s name proving that petitioner remained as
must of necessity make an infinitesimal scrunity and examine the private respondent’s employee up to December 2000. Again,
records all over again including the evidence presented by the petitioner’s assertion that the payroll was merely fabricated for the
opposing parties to determine which findings should be preferred as purpose of supporting private respondent’s case before the NLRC
more conformable with evidentiary facts.26 cannot be given credence. Entries in the payroll, being entries in the
course of business, enjoy the presumption of regularity under Rule
130, Section 43 of the Rules of Court. It is therefore incumbent upon
The primordial issue in the petition at bar is whether the petitioner was the petitioner to adduce clear and convincing evidence in support of
illegally dismissed from employment. his claim of fabrication and to overcome such presumption of
regularity.30 Unfortunately, petitioner again failed in such endeavor.
The Labor Arbiter found that the petitioner was illegally dismissed from
employment warranting the payment of his backwages. The NLRC and On these scores, there is a dearth of evidence to establish the fact of
the Court of Appeals found otherwise. petitioner’s dismissal. We have scrupulously examined the records and
we found no evidence presented by petitioner, other than his own
In reversing the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, the NLRC underscored the contentions that he was indeed dismissed by private respondent.
settled evidentiary rule that before the burden of proof shifts to the
employer to prove the validity of the employee’s dismissal, the While this Court is not unmindful of the rule that in cases of illegal
employee must first sufficiently establish that he was indeed dismissed dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proof to prove that the
from employment. The petitioner, in the present case, failed to termination was for a valid or authorized cause in the case at bar,
establish the fact of his dismissal. The NLRC did not give credence to however, the facts and the evidence did not establish a prima
petitioner’s allegation that he was banned by the private respondent facie case that the petitioner was dismissed from employment.31 Before
from entering the workplace, opining that had it been true that the private respondent must bear the burden of proving that the
petitioner was no longer allowed to enter the training site when he dismissal was legal, petitioner must first establish by substantial
reported for work thereat on 2 December 2000, it is quite a wonder he evidence the fact of his dismissal from service. Logically, if there is no
was able to do so the very next day, on 3 December 2000, to claim his dismissal, then there can be no question as to the legality or illegality
salary.27 thereof.

The Court of Appeals validated the above conclusion reached by the In Machica v. Roosevelt Services Center, Inc.,32 we had underscored
NLRC and further rationated that petitioner’s positive allegations that that the burden of proving the allegations rest upon the party alleging,
he was dismissed from service was negated by substantial evidence to to wit:
The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving
it; thus, petitioners were burdened to prove their allegation that
respondents dismissed them from their employment. It must be
stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear,
positive and convincing. The rule that the employer bears the
burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no application here
because the respondents deny having dismissed the petitioners.33

In Rufina Patis Factory v. Alusitain,34 this Court took the occasion to

emphasize:

It is a basic rule in evidence, however, that the burden of proof is on

the part of the party who makes the allegations – ei incumbit probatio,
qui dicit, non qui negat. If he claims a right granted by law, he
must prove his claim by competent evidence, relying on the
strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of
that of his opponent. 35

It is true that the Constitution affords full protection to labor, and that
in light of this Constitutional mandate, we must be vigilant in striking
down any attempt of the management to exploit or oppress the
working class. However, it does not mean that we are bound to uphold
the working class in every labor dispute brought before this Court for
our resolution.

The law in protecting the rights of the employees, authorizes neither

oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. It should be made
clear that when the law tilts the scales of justice in favor of labor, it is
in recognition of the inherent economic inequality between labor and
management. The intent is to balance the scales of justice; to put the
two parties on relatively equal positions. There may be cases where
the circumstances warrant favoring labor over the interests of
management but never should the scale be so tilted if the result is an
injustice to the employer. Justitia nemini neganda est -- justice is to be
denied to none.36

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DENIED. The

Court of Appeals Decision dated 28 May 2005 and its Resolution dated
7 September 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 79724 are hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.