HENRY M. CAOC, REYLITO L. FUENTES, JOSE ACOSTA, CHARLIE WANDRY, CHRISTOPHER BAUTISTA, CARLOS R. IGHARAS, JR., LUCKY T. GREGORIO, EDUARDO R. PEÑANO AND NOLY E. MISAJON, PETITIONE…

Caoc versus Asian Terminals

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by a group of stevedores — lashers, porters, and dock workers — against Asian Terminals, Incorporated, a company engaged in port operations. The workers claim they were regular employees who were illegally dismissed and underpaid, while the company insists they were mere "extras" deployed only when business demand exceeded the capacity of its regular and casual reserve employees. The case matters because it fixes where the burden lies in an illegal dismissal complaint: before the employer must justify a termination, the employee must first prove that a dismissal ever happened. It is a clean lesson on the interplay of substantial evidence, the burden of proof, and the narrow gate of grave abuse of discretion under Rule 65.

Procedural History

The workers filed complaints for illegal dismissal and money claims before the National Labor Relations Commission, which were consolidated and raffled to a Labor Arbiter. After the parties submitted their position papers and additional pleadings, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the workers, finding them illegally dismissed and ordering the company to pay full backwages, thirteenth month pay, service incentive leave pay, cost of living allowance, separation pay, and attorney's fees. The company appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which reversed the Labor Arbiter, found that the workers were not dismissed, and vacated and set aside the Labor Arbiter's decision. The workers moved for reconsideration, but the Commission denied it. The workers then came to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, challenging both the Commission's decision and its resolution denying reconsideration.

Facts

The petitioners worked for Asian Terminals as all-around stevedores. In their position papers they claimed that they had served for several years, that they had thereby attained regular status, and that on separate dates they were illegally dismissed without any notice and without legal basis. They also claimed that they were paid less than the minimum wage and were denied overtime pay, thirteenth month pay, night shift differential, service incentive leave pay, and cost of living allowance.

The company denied dismissing anyone. It explained that the petitioners were "extras," deployed only when an irregular, high demand of business exceeded the capability of its regular and casual reserve employees. Extras are not required to report every day. Deployment ran through a rotation system: a terminal officer would email the manpower allocator, who would prioritize the request in a computer system; at the hiring hall, each casual reserve employee and extra worker had an assigned rotation number, and whoever was present when his number was called was deployed, with a certificate of attendance generated under his name. If he was absent when called, he was placed at the bottom of the roll.

The company added that during mediation conferences it had asked the petitioners to report back for possible deployment, but they did not do so. The Labor Arbiter nonetheless found them illegally dismissed. The Commission reversed, and the workers elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reversing the Labor Arbiter and finding that the petitioners were not dismissed from employment.
• Whether or not the petitioners sufficiently established, by substantial evidence, the fact of their dismissal from employment.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as applied by the Court, governs the special civil action of certiorari and requires a showing of grave abuse of discretion:

A special civil action of certiorari, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, will not lie unless the petitioner can sufficiently show that the tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

This is the gate through which the petitioners had to pass, and it is a narrow one.

The Court also quotes its own ruling in Basay versus Hacienda Consolacion on the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases:

We are not unmindful of the rule in labor cases that the employer has the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause; however, it is likewise incumbent upon the employees that they should first establish by competent evidence the fact of their dismissal from employment. The one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and the proof should be clear, positive and convincing.

This fixes the sequence of proof: the employee must first establish the dismissal before the employer is called upon to justify it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that certiorari will not lie absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion. It defined grave abuse of discretion as a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, an abuse so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. The burden to prove not merely reversible error but grave abuse of discretion rests on the petitioner.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petition fails. In illegal dismissal cases, it devolves upon the employee to establish the fact of dismissal; otherwise there would be no illegal dismissal to speak of. The pleadings were bereft of proof other than bare allegations. The petitioners could not even describe, in general terms, the circumstances of their supposed dismissal — how they were told not to report, the dates they tried to return, whether they were barred from the premises. That their deployment depended on unusually high demand, that they were not required to report daily, and that the company asked them to return during mediation all bolstered the conclusion that they were never dismissed.

The Court grounded this on a fundamental rule of evidence, expressed in the Latin maxim et incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat — the proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies:

Since Petitioners did not sufficiently establish, through substantial evidence, the fact of their dismissal, it thus stands to reason that they were not actually dismissed by ATI.

Having found no sufficient proof of dismissal, the Court could not say the Commission acted capriciously or whimsically. There was no grave abuse of discretion.

Doctrine

First, in an illegal dismissal case the employee carries the initial burden of proving the fact of dismissal by clear, positive, and convincing evidence; only after dismissal is established does the employer's burden to prove a valid or authorized cause arise. Second, the party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it — et incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat. Third, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 requires a showing of grave abuse of discretion — a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction — and the burden of that showing rests on the petitioner. Where the employee fails to prove dismissal, the labor tribunal cannot be said to have gravely abused its discretion in finding that no dismissal occurred.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the Commission's decision and resolution were affirmed; the company prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize the sequence: the employee must first prove the dismissal, and only then must the employer prove a valid cause. Examiners use this case to test the burden of proof in illegal dismissal and the strict standard of grave abuse of discretion under Rule 65.