GR 156810; (November, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156810 , November 25, 2004
German Machineries Corporation, petitioner, vs. Eddie D. Endaya, respondent.
FACTS
Eddie Endaya was employed as a car painter by German Machineries Corporation. On August 27, 1999, after a dispute over a painting assignment and taking a water break, he was allegedly told by a company officer to get his separation pay and go home, constituting a dismissal. Endaya filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the DOLE on August 30, 1999. The company later presented memoranda dated August 27 and September 6, 1999, suspending Endaya for alleged insubordination and other infractions, and a September 15, 1999 memo warning him that his continued absence could be construed as abandonment. The company contended Endaya was not dismissed but had abandoned his work after being disciplined.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Endaya, declaring his dismissal illegal. This decision was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and subsequently by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the company’s petition for certiorari for being filed out of time and for failure to sufficiently show that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The company elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition and in affirming the findings of illegal dismissal.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s resolutions. On procedural grounds, the Court found the petition for certiorari filed with the CA was indeed filed one day late. The company’s excuse of “heavy workload” was deemed insufficient to constitute a compelling reason to relax procedural rules. On the substantive merits, the Court upheld the finding of illegal dismissal. The burden of proof rests on the employer to prove a valid cause for termination. The company’s claim that Endaya was merely suspended and later abandoned his job was not credible. The filing of the illegal dismissal complaint on August 30, 1999, preceded the company’s issuance of the suspension and abandonment memoranda. The Court found no evidence of a proper investigation prior to the alleged suspension. The memoranda were issued subsequently as an afterthought to validate an already effected dismissal. Consequently, Endaya’s dismissal was illegal for lack of just or authorized cause and due process.