ESTER M. ASUNCION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, MABINI MEDICAL CLINIC AND DR. WILFRIDO JUCO, RESPONDENTS.

Asuncion versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a labor case about the proof an employer must present before it may dismiss a worker. Ester Asuncion, an accountant and bookkeeper of the Mabini Medical Clinic, was dismissed by the clinic and its medical director, Dr. Wilfrido Juco, on charges of chronic absenteeism, habitual tardiness, loitering, and disobedience. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The case matters because the Supreme Court here restates, in the clearest terms, two rules every Bar candidate must carry into the examination room: that a worker's employment is property protected by the Constitution, and that the burden of proving a just cause for dismissal rests on the employer, who must discharge it with clear and convincing evidence and not with self-serving scraps of paper.

Procedural History

The complaint for illegal dismissal was filed with the National Labor Relations Commission and assigned to Labor Arbiter Manuel Caday. In a decision dated May 15, 1996, the Labor Arbiter ruled that Asuncion was illegally dismissed. He found that the clinic failed to prove the charges because it did not present the time cards, logbooks, or record book, all of which were in its possession, and he ordered reinstatement with backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

The clinic appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, Second Division. The Commission agreed that the employer had failed to present evidence of the absences and tardiness, but it held that Asuncion had admitted the infractions in her letter of explanation. It set aside the Labor Arbiter's decision, dismissed the complaint, and awarded her three months' salary as a penalty for the violation of her right to due process. Her motion for reconsideration was denied. She then came to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and the Court resolved the case in her favor.

Facts

On August 16, 1993, the Mabini Medical Clinic employed Ester Asuncion as an accountant and bookkeeper. In May 1994, labor inspectors from the Department of Labor and Employment conducted a routine inspection of the clinic and, acting on her disclosures, found violations of the labor standards law, including the non-coverage of employees under the Social Security System. The clinic was made to correct these violations.

On August 9, 1994, Dr. Wilfrido Juco issued a memorandum charging her with chronic absenteeism, thirty-five absences and twenty-three half-days since August 1993; habitual tardiness, one hundred eight times; loitering and wasting company time; getting the salary of an absent employee without acknowledging or signing for it; and disobedience and insubordination. She was required to explain within two days why she should not be terminated. She submitted her explanation on the morning of August 12, 1994, but on that same day Dr. Juco dismissed her by letter, citing disobedience of lawful orders and her failure to submit her reply within the two-day period.

At the hearings, the clinic presented only a handwritten listing of her absences and tardiness, unsigned by its maker, and unsigned computer print-outs. It never presented the record book, even though the memorandum and the notice of termination expressly cited that record book as the basis of the charges. It also claimed it had sent her notices of her absences, but the records did not show that she received them. The Labor Arbiter further found that she had in fact tried to submit her explanation within the two-day period, but the clinic's staff had been instructed not to accept it.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission erred in finding that Asuncion was dismissed for a just or authorized cause.
• Whether or not the employer discharged its burden of proving the just cause for dismissal with clear and convincing evidence.
• Whether or not Asuncion was denied due process in the giving of the two-day period to explain the charges against her.

Applicable Provisions

Article 3 of the Labor Code provides:

Article 3. Declaration of basic policy. The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and regulate the relations between workers and employers.

This declares the State policy of protecting labor, which the Court invokes in resolving doubts in the worker's favor.

Article 4 of the Labor Code provides:

Article 4. Construction in favor of labor. All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.

This is the rule the Court applies when the evidence of the employer and the employee are in conflict.

Article 279 of the Labor Code provides:

Article 279. Security of tenure. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

This is the provision that entitles Asuncion to reinstatement and backwages once her dismissal is declared illegal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission erred. Although factual findings of administrative bodies are entitled to great weight, the Court took a second look because the Labor Arbiter and the Commission had reached diverse conclusions on the same facts, and a disharmony between their findings opens the door to review. The Court stressed that a worker's employment is property in the constitutional sense, and that for a dismissal to be valid it must rest on a just cause supported by clear and convincing evidence, with an opportunity to be heard. The employer bears the burden of proving the just cause, and failure to discharge that burden means the dismissal is not justified.

On the second issue, the Court found a paucity of evidence. The handwritten listing was unsigned, and the computer print-outs bore handwritten and unsigned entries. They were unauthenticated and unreliable, mere self-serving evidence without rational probative value even in administrative proceedings. The Court quoted its earlier ruling that the liberality of administrative procedure does not justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational probative value. Most tellingly, the clinic never presented the record book it had cited as the basis of the charges, although it had possession and the opportunity to do so. The Court applied the rule on best evidence: if a party withholds the better evidence and substitutes inferior evidence, the presumption arises that the better evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes. The Court also rejected the Commission's finding of admission, because Asuncion's letter explained that her absences fell on Saturdays, when by agreement with the clinic she did not work, and the clinic never denied that arrangement.

On the third issue, the Court held that the two-day period was most unreasonable, considering the number and age of the charges and their lack of particularity. The law mandates that every opportunity and assistance be accorded to the employee to prepare adequately for his defense, and the clinic prevented her from filing her explanation on time. With serious doubts on the factual basis of the charges, the Court resolved them in her favor under the policy to afford protection to labor.

Doctrine

A worker's employment is property in the constitutional sense, and he cannot be deprived of it without due process. For a dismissal to be valid, it must be based on a just cause supported by clear and convincing evidence, and the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and defend himself. The burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause rests on the employer; failure to discharge it means the dismissal is unjustified and the employee is entitled to reinstatement and backwages under Article 279. Unsigned handwritten listings and unsigned computer print-outs are unauthenticated, self-serving evidence without rational probative value, even in administrative proceedings. The employer's unexplained failure to present the best evidence in its possession, such as the record book on which the charges were based, raises the presumption that it was withheld for fraudulent purposes. Finally, under Articles 3 and 4, all doubts in the evidence of the employer and the employee must be resolved in favor of labor.

Disposition

Asuncion won. The Court reversed and set aside the decision and resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission and reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter declaring her dismissal illegal and awarding reinstatement, backwages, damages, and attorney's fees.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the employer bears the burden of proving a just cause for dismissal by clear and convincing evidence, and that unsigned listings and print-outs are worthless for that purpose. Examiners use this case on the burden of proof in illegal dismissal, on the best evidence rule in labor proceedings, and on the requirement of ample opportunity to be heard.