G.R. No. 79554 December 14, 1989
LEOPOLDO G. DIZON, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and D.M. CONSUNJI, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Leopoldo Dizon was hired by D.M. Consunji, Inc. for a two-year contract as a senior carpenter in Brunei. In April 1982, he developed severe skin rashes, requiring multiple visits to the company clinic. On May 17, 1982, a strike occurred at the project site. POEA Director Manuel Imson, dispatched to resolve the strike, issued a return-to-work order on May 21. Dizon did not report for work on the strike date or comply with the return-to-work order. Consunji terminated Dizon and approximately 360 other workers on June 9, 1982, alleging they breached their employment contracts by participating in an illegal strike and defying the return-to-work order.
Dizon filed an illegal dismissal case. The POEA Administrator ruled in his favor, ordering Consunji to pay unpaid salaries and wages for the 21-month unexpired contract, finding no clear evidence of Dizon’s strike participation or defiance. The NLRC reversed this decision, upholding the dismissal as for just cause. Dizon elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Was petitioner Leopoldo Dizon illegally dismissed?

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition and found the dismissal illegal. The Court reiterated the fundamental rule that the employer bears the burden of proving the lawful cause for dismissal. While Consunji established a prima facie case by showing Dizon’s absence during the strike and after the return-to-work order, this was sufficiently rebutted. Dizon presented medical evidence, including a letter from the company’s project nurse, confirming his treatment for severe skin rashes on dates surrounding the strike. He credibly denied participation, explaining his absence was due to illness and that his clinic visit on the strike day was inadvertently omitted from the nurse’s record.
The NLRC’s conclusion, which relied solely on Dizon’s absence to infer strike participation while ignoring the corroborated medical justification, was not supported by substantial evidence and constituted grave abuse of discretion. The employer’s evidence failed to meet the required quantum of proof. Consequently, the dismissal was unjustified. The Court reinstated the POEA decision with modification on the award, reducing the backwages for the unexpired contract from 21 to 14 months as a reasonable measure, considering the circumstances and to avoid protracted proceedings on mitigation of income. The order for payment of withheld salaries was also upheld.