CABALEN MANAGEMENT CO., INC. VS JESUS P. QUIAMBAO

CABALEN MANAGEMENT CO., INC.

VS

JESUS P. QUIAMBAO
528 SCRA 153 (2007)

It is a well-established rule that the employer has the burden of proving a valid dismissal of an employee, for which it must be for a just or authorized cause and with due process.

Jesus Quiambao, et al. were charged of tip pocketing and swapping of dining order slips with bar order slips, among others. They were dismissed from employment due to said acts. They filed a case against Cabalen Management Co., Inc. (Cabalen) for illegal dismissal but the decision of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission was in favor of Cabalen. Quiambao, et al. elevated the case to the Court of Appeals and the CA ruled otherwise. Cabalen sought to set aside the decision of the CA which reversed the earlier rulings provided for by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. They also questioned the Resolution given by CA which denied their Motion for Reconsideration.

The assailed CA decision held that except for respondents Vizier Inocencio and Vincent Edward Mapa whose petitions were dismissed pursuant to Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of the Rules of Court and Section 4 (a) of the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, herein Quiambao, et al. were illegally dismissed from their employment. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision, hence, Cabalen’s Motion for Reconsideration became subject of this Resolution. To the Motion, Quiambao, et al. filed their Opposition.

ISSUES:
Whether or not Quiambao, et al. were illegally dismissed

HELD:
It is a well-established rule that the employer has the burden of proving a valid dismissal of an employee, for which two requisites must concur: (a) the dismissal must be for any of the causes expressed in the Labor Code; and (b) the employee must be accorded due process, basic of which is the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.

To establish a just or authorized cause for dismissal, substantial evidence or “such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion” is required. Further required is that an employee sought to be dismissed must be served two written notices before the termination of his employment. The first notice must appraise him of the particular acts or omissions upon which his dismissal is grounded; the second, to inform him of the employer’s decision to terminate his employment. While the failure of the employer to comply with these notice requirements does not make the dismissal illegal as long as a just or authorized cause has been proved, it renders the employer liable for payment of damages because of the violation of the worker’s right to statutory due process.

In the instant case, only photocopies of the statements of Balen and Malana form part of the records despite Cabalen’s reliance thereon to prove respondents’ purported transgressions. Jarcia Machine Shop and Auto Supply, Inc. v. NLRC held that the unsigned photocopies of daily time records (DTRs), which were presented by the therein employer to show that its employee was neglectful of his duties, were of “doubtful or dubious probative value.”

Cabalen, et al. did not even heed their own procedures on disciplinary actions. The only facts extant in the records are that respondents were issued above-said Corrective Action Report (CARE) Forms asking them to explain their alleged infractions within 48 hours; and they subsequently received notices of dismissal after they submitted their written explanations. There is, however, nothing to show that before their dismissal, Quimbao, et al. were informed of their immediate supervisors’ decision to terminate their services, or that they were thereafter invited to an administrative investigation before the HRD manager or officer who is tasked to conduct the investigation in the presence of the employees’ immediate supervisor/s and the witnesses, if necessary, as provided under Section IV of the company’s Code of Conduct.

No record of any administrative investigation proceeding, which under the company’s rules was to be “minuted,” had also been presented. Hence, only Cabalen’s allegation that the statements of the witnesses were taken as part of the administrative investigation is before this Court. Allegations without proof do not deserve consideration.

Finally, on the dismissal of Quiambao allegedly on the ground of business losses, it was incumbent upon Cabe to len, et al. to prove it by substantial evidence. It did not, however. In fact, Quiambao presented documents to disprove the validity of his retrenchment on that ground. For petitioners’ failure to discharge its burden then, this Court is constrained to hold that Quiambao’s dismissal was not valid.