NILO O. ASIONG, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMIS-SION (2ND DIVISION), PONCIANO LATO BANJAO AND/OR JESEL LATO CERILO, RESPONDENTS.

Asiong versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Nilo Asiong, a security guard, against the National Labor Relations Commission, his employer JCPB Security Agency, and its alleged owners Ponciano Lato Banjao and Jesel Lato Cerilo. Asiong claims he was illegally dismissed and underpaid; the employers answer that he simply abandoned his post. The case matters because it fixes the order of proof in every illegal dismissal complaint: the employee must first prove that he was dismissed at all, and only then does the burden shift to the employer to prove that the dismissal was valid. It also reminds us of the narrow gate of a petition for certiorari, which corrects jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion, not errors of fact.

Procedural History

Asiong first filed a complaint for non-payment of monetary benefits before the Labor Arbiter, later amended to include illegal dismissal. After mandatory conciliation failed, the parties filed their position papers. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, but ordered the employers to pay proportionate thirteenth month pay, unpaid service incentive leave pay, and to refund the cash bond and security bond for 2011. Asiong appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, Second Division, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Labor Arbiter. His motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Asiong then went up to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing both resolutions of the Commission.

Facts

On January 15, 2008, JCPB Security Agency hired Nilo Asiong as a security guard. He was first detailed at the parking lot of Club Manila East Resort, and later assigned at the Sampaguita Construction site of the same resort. He claimed he worked twelve hours a night, from six in the evening to six in the morning, for a daily wage of 200 pesos.

At the end of his shift on November 6, 2011, a fellow guard, Rolly Dayang, allegedly told him, on the instruction of Operations Manager Rodel Labong, not to report for his night shift and to collect his belongings, because his post would be given to a relative of Banjao and Cerilo. Asiong surrendered his service firearm and went home. When he sought clarification from Labong and from Cerilo, both allegedly confirmed his replacement.

Asiong filed his complaint, later amended to illegal dismissal. The employers denied any dismissal. They claimed that Asiong went on absence without leave on November 15, 2011 and ignored the agency's return to work notice, and they presented payrolls and proof of payment of thirteenth month pay, cash bond, surety bond, and monthly bonus.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in holding that Asiong failed to prove that he was dismissed.
• Whether or not the Commission gravely abused its discretion in holding that the employers paid Asiong's labor standard benefits.
• Whether or not the Commission gravely abused its discretion in holding that only JCPB Security Agency, and not Banjao and Cerilo, is liable.

Applicable Provisions

The decision rests on the rule of evidence in illegal dismissal cases, which the Court states as follows:

It is a recognized rule in illegal dismissal cases that the employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal is valid, but before the employer take on this duty, the employee must first establish the fact of his dismissal.

This fixes the order of proof: the employee goes first on the fact of dismissal, and the employer's burden arises only after that fact is established.

The Court also states the standard of proof the employee must meet:

As the party alleging the fact, petitioner therefore carries the burden of proving that he was indeed dismissed by private respondents, and such proof needs to be clear, positive and convincing.

This is why a bare allegation of verbal termination, uncorroborated by any other evidence, cannot sustain a claim of illegal dismissal.

On the scope of the remedy, the Court states:

It is a settled rule that the sole object of such petition is to address errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.

This confines the petition to jurisdictional errors and keeps questions of fact, such as underpayment of salary and overtime, outside its reach.

Finally, on the deference owed to labor tribunals, the Court states:

This fortifies the doctrine that judicial review of labor cases does not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the labor officials' findings rest.

This is the basis for affirming the Commission's findings where they are supported by substantial evidence.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Asiong failed to prove his dismissal. The employer bears the burden of proving that a dismissal is valid, but only after the employee first establishes the fact of dismissal. Asiong offered nothing beyond his bare allegation that the Operations Manager verbally terminated him. No evidence showed that he was replaced or prevented from returning to his post. His statement was self-serving and deserved no probative value, and absent any overt or positive act of dismissal, his claim could not be sustained.

On the second issue, the Court held that the question of underpayment and unpaid overtime was a question of fact, outside the ambit of a petition for certiorari. The Court quoted the Commission's finding that the payrolls showed payments of 7,290 pesos every fifteen days for fifteen days of work with sixty overtime hours, which, measured against the prevailing minimum wage rate of 320 pesos a day under Wage Order Number IV-A-146, disproved any underpayment. Asiong failed to prove the specific dates he worked beyond eight hours, so his overtime claim had no basis. The Court held that the Commission's findings, supported by substantial evidence, are binding.

On the third issue, the Court sustained the Commission's ruling that only JCPB Security Agency, and not Banjao and Cerilo, is liable, there being no dismissal to speak of and no basis shown for piercing the corporate veil.

Doctrine

In every illegal dismissal case, the employee carries the initial burden of proving the fact of dismissal by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. Only when that fact is established does the burden shift to the employer to prove that the dismissal was valid. A bare, uncorroborated claim of verbal dismissal, without any overt or positive act showing that the employee was dismissed, is self-serving and cannot sustain the complaint. Questions of underpayment of salary and unpaid overtime are questions of fact, outside the scope of a petition for certiorari, whose sole object is to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Findings of labor tribunals supported by substantial evidence are accorded great weight and are binding on the Court.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission dismissing the appeal and denying reconsideration were affirmed. The employers won.

Remember This

Memorize the order of proof: the employee must first prove the fact of dismissal by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and only then does the burden shift to the employer to prove that the dismissal was valid. Examiners use this case to test the burden of proof in illegal dismissal and the rule that factual findings of labor tribunals supported by substantial evidence are binding and outside the reach of a petition for certiorari.