ROLLY BRADECINA, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION), []TFM POWERLINE CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND TERESITO JIMENEZ, RESPONDENTS.

Bradecina versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a labor case in which Rolly Bradecina, a supervisor of TFM Powerline Construction, Incorporated, challenged his dismissal for serious misconduct and the denial of his money claims. He sued his employer and its president, Teresito Jimenez, for illegal dismissal and for unpaid holiday pay, premium pay, service incentive leave, thirteenth month pay, emergency cost of living allowance, separation pay, backwages, damages, and attorney's fees. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the classic rules every labor reviewee must carry: the three elements of serious misconduct as a just cause for dismissal, the employer's right of self-preservation against disloyalty, the respect owed to the factual findings of labor tribunals when supported by substantial evidence, the relaxed application of technical rules of evidence in labor proceedings, and the burden of proving payment of money claims.

Procedural History

Bradecina first filed his complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment, Bulacan Provincial Field Office, but no settlement was reached after several conciliation conferences. The case was then endorsed to the National Labor Relations Commission, Regional Arbitration Branch Number Three, in San Fernando City, Pampanga, for compulsory arbitration. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal and the other money claims for lack of merit, but ordering the employer and Jimenez to pay Bradecina six thousand ninety three pesos as service incentive leave pay and thirty six thousand five hundred fifty eight pesos as thirteenth month pay.

Bradecina appealed, and the employer filed a partial appeal. The National Labor Relations Commission, Third Division, rendered a decision dismissing Bradecina's appeal, granting the employer's partial appeal, deleting the award of thirteenth month pay, and affirming the service incentive leave pay. Bradecina's motion for reconsideration was denied. Bradecina then went to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Facts

Bradecina was employed by TFM Powerline in 1997 as a digger. Through the years he rose from lineman to foreman and finally to supervisor. Sometime in July 2012, the company discovered that its basket crew, digging crew, and crane crew had been used to relocate Meralco poles and live line wires at Zerata Homes Subdivision in Norzagaray, Bulacan, without the Meralco caution sign. The project engineer of the subdivision had asked for help, and the work was done without any job order from the company. The company learned of this when the engineer disclosed it to the company vice president.

The company sent notices to Bradecina, his brother Christopher, and Jimmy Mendoza, directing them to explain in writing why they should not be dismissed. Bradecina denied taking part but admitted he knew what his brother and Mendoza had done. In his explanation he wrote that Mendoza had mentioned the matter to him before it happened, but that he did not agree because it was wrong and there was no work order. Mendoza, in his explanation, stated that he called Bradecina upon Christopher's instruction, that Bradecina paused for a long while and finally allowed the request, advising him to tell their co-workers to keep quiet about the matter. Mendoza also confessed that Bradecina received three thousand pesos out of the seventy five thousand pesos paid by the subdivision for the services rendered.

Finding the explanations unsatisfactory, the company served notices of termination dated September 11, 2012, and charged the three with qualified theft. Bradecina filed his complaint on October 24, 2012. He later claimed that in January 2013 Mendoza told him that company officials had treated him to a meal and asked him to write a second explanation letter implicating Bradecina.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the validity of Bradecina's dismissal for serious misconduct and in not awarding backwages or separation pay.
• Whether or not Bradecina is entitled to unpaid salary, emergency cost of living allowance, holiday pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the employer's partial appeal and deleting the award of thirteenth month pay.
• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Bradecina's motion for reconsideration.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the Labor Code's mandate that labor officials use every reasonable means to ascertain the facts speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities, which the Court states as follows:

In fact, labor officials are mandated by the Labor Code to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.

This provision bears on the case because it allowed the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission to consider Mendoza's second written explanation despite Bradecina's objection that it came after the complaint was filed.

The decision also applies the basic rule on evidence that each party must prove his or her affirmative allegation:

It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his/her affirmative allegation. Since the burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts the affirmative allegation, the plaintiff or complainant has to prove his/her affirmative allegations in the complaint and the defendant or the respondent has to prove the affirmative allegation in his/her affirmative defenses and counterclaim.

This rule bears on the money claims, because Bradecina had to prove his affirmative allegations of unpaid benefits, while the employer had to prove payment of what it claimed to have paid.

On the burden of proving payment, the Court states the rule thus:

One who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment.

This rule bears on the thirteenth month pay, because the employer presented the Transaction Validation List to show that the amount for 2011 had already been credited to Bradecina's account.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Bradecina was validly dismissed for serious misconduct. The evidence showed that he had control and supervision over Mendoza and Christopher, that he knew of the unauthorized use of the company's equipment, and that he did nothing to stop, prevent, or report it. His own explanation admitted that Mendoza had told him of the plan beforehand. The Court found that when he told Mendoza to tell the men to keep quiet, he showed a resolve to act without management approval, a clear violation of company rule. The Court defined misconduct as improper or wrong conduct, a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, implying wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. For misconduct to be a just cause for dismissal, the Court held that it must be serious, must relate to the performance of the employee's duties, and must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. The Court also held that as a measure of self-preservation against acts inimical to its interests, an employer has the right to dismiss an employee found committing acts of dishonesty and disloyalty, and that the law, in protecting the rights of workers, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. Since Bradecina occupied a position of trust and confidence, the employer's loss of trust and confidence justified his termination. The Court also held that the National Labor Relations Commission did not err in considering Mendoza's second written explanation, since technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases. Having been dismissed for just cause, Bradecina was entitled to neither separation pay, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, nor attorney's fees.

On the second issue, the Court held that Bradecina failed to prove his claims for unpaid holiday pay, premium pay, and emergency cost of living allowance. The records were bereft of any allegation, much less evidence, of the particular time when he rendered compensable service in excess of regular working hours. Since the burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts the affirmative allegation, his bare allegations could not sustain the claims.

On the third issue, the Court held that the deletion of the thirteenth month pay was proper. The employer substantiated that the sum of fourteen thousand thirty one pesos and twenty five centavos, corresponding to Bradecina's thirteenth month pay for 2011, was already credited to his account, as shown by the Transaction Validation List. Applying the rule that the debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment, the Court found that the employer had discharged that burden.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the National Labor Relations Commission committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration, since its findings were supported by substantial evidence and deserved respect and even finality.

Doctrine

For misconduct to be a just cause for dismissal, three elements must concur: it must be serious; it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and it must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. An employer has the right of self-preservation and may dismiss an employee found committing acts of dishonesty and disloyalty, and where the employee occupies a position of trust and confidence, the loss of trust and confidence justifies termination. Technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases, and labor officials are mandated to ascertain the facts speedily and objectively without regard to technicalities, all in the interest of due process. Each party must prove his or her affirmative allegation, and one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it, with the debtor bound to show with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged. Factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission, when supported by substantial evidence, deserve respect and even finality.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the decision and resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission, Third Division, were affirmed.

Remember This

Memorize the three elements of serious misconduct and the rule that an employer may not be compelled to continue employing a person whose continuance would be inimical to its interest. Examiners like to use this case on just causes for dismissal of supervisory employees occupying positions of trust and confidence, on the relaxation of technical rules of evidence in labor proceedings, and on the burden of proving payment of money claims.