REMEDIOS A. HABAL, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND EGM ENTERPRISES AND/OR EDGARDO GO MUNDO, RESPONDENTS.

Habal versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a labor case that began as a complaint by Remedios Habal against her former employer, EGM Enterprises, and its owner, Edgardo Go Mundo. She claimed she had been illegally dismissed and sought backwages, separation pay, and other money claims. The employer answered that she was never dismissed at all, but had simply walked away from her job to run a food stall. The case matters because it tests a rule every labor lawyer memorizes: the employer ordinarily bears the burden of proving a valid dismissal. Here the Court reminds us that this burden does not shift to the employer until the employee first proves, by substantial evidence, that a dismissal ever happened.

Procedural History

Habal filed her complaint, later amended, before the Labor Arbiter. On March 26, 2012, Labor Arbiter Jonalyn Martinez Gutierrez dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal for failure of the complainant to substantiate her claim, but ordered EGM Enterprises or Edgardo Go Mundo to pay her proportionate thirteenth month pay. Habal appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. On August 23, 2012, the Commission denied the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision. Her motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated September 28, 2012. Habal then went up to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assigning grave abuse of discretion to the Commission.

Facts

Sometime in 2006, EGM Enterprises, a business engaged in the distribution of diesel and Rebisco biscuits, hired Habal as a cashier for the diesel business and as a checker for the Rebisco business. She worked from Monday to Saturday, from eight in the evening to eight in the morning, with a salary of seven thousand pesos. She claims that for almost five years she served with honesty, sincerity, and loyalty.

According to Habal, on February 28, 2011, she was suddenly relieved of her job on the ground that there was no more work for her. She then sold food or viands while waiting for work, waited six months, and when no position came, filed her complaint. The employer's story is different. It denied dismissing her and claimed that in February 2011 she abandoned her job to run a food store. It said it tried to persuade her to return, but she refused. It also admitted that she had not received her proportionate thirteenth month pay because she never came back.

The Labor Arbiter found Habal's conduct inconsistent with a claim of dismissal. She waited ten months before complaining, set up a food stall during her supposed floating status, rejected an offer of reinstatement, and asked for separation pay rather than reinstatement. The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed these findings.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
• Whether or not Habal was illegally dismissed from her employment.

Applicable Provisions

The petition was filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the provision governing the special civil action for certiorari, which the Court applies in describing the petitioner's burden:

Section 1. Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

This provision frames the entire review, because Habal had to show grave abuse of discretion, not merely reversible error, before the Court could disturb the Commission's findings.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that grave abuse of discretion means a capricious, despotic, oppressive, or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, a willful and unreasoning action, and that Habal showed none. On the second issue, the Court ruled that she failed to prove she was dismissed at all. While the employer normally bears the burden of proving a valid termination, that burden arises only after the employee first establishes the fact of dismissal by substantial evidence. The Court put the rule this way:

Before the employer must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal is legal, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from service. If there is no dismissal, then there can be no question as to the legality or illegality thereof.

Because the employer denied dismissing her, the burden never shifted. Her claim rested only on her own self-serving and unverified narration of a verbal termination, with no evidence of any overt act of dismissal or of being prevented from returning to work. The Court also relied on the settled rule that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the Labor Arbiter and the Commission are accorded respect, even finality, absent a clear showing of abuse.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, in an illegal dismissal case, the employee carries the initial burden of proving the fact of dismissal by substantial evidence, and only then does the burden shift to the employer to prove that the dismissal was for a valid or authorized cause. Second, if there is no dismissal, there is no question as to its legality or illegality. Third, one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it, and the evidence of dismissal must be clear, positive, and convincing. Fourth, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 requires a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, meaning capricious and arbitrary action equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Fifth, factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission are binding on the Court absent a clear showing of abuse.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, and the Commission's decision and resolution were affirmed; Habal lost, and only the award of proportionate thirteenth month pay in her favor stood.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the employee must first prove the dismissal before the employer must prove its legality. Examiners use this case to test burden of proof in illegal dismissal and the strict standard for certiorari against the National Labor Relations Commission.