GR 182216; (December, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182216 , December 4, 2009
PLANTATION BAY RESORT and SPA and EFREN BELARMINO, Petitioners, vs. ROMEL S. DUBRICO, GODFREY D. NGUJO and JULIUS D. VILLAFLOR, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents were employees of Plantation Bay Resort. In September 2004, the resort, pursuant to its drug-free workplace policy and RA 9165, conducted surprise random drug tests. Respondents Romel Dubrico, Godfrey Ngujo, and Julius Villaflor tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in tests administered by Martell Medical Trade and Lab Services, with confirmatory tests by the Philippine Drug Screening Laboratory, Inc. After submitting explanations found unsatisfactory by management, they were dismissed for serious misconduct.
The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the employees’ complaints for illegal dismissal, a decision affirmed by the NLRC. However, upon motion for reconsideration, the NLRC reversed itself. It found a critical anomaly in the evidence: the dates on the confirmatory test results preceded the dates of the actual initial drug tests. The NLRC concluded this sequence rendered the tests fabricated or sham, as one cannot confirm a result not yet established.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in reversing its decision and declaring the dismissal illegal based on an issue (the anomalous test dates) raised only in a motion for reconsideration.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the findings of illegal dismissal. On the procedural issue, the Court held that while the general rule prohibits raising new issues on appeal, exceptions exist for reasons of public policy or interest. The veracity of the drug test results, being crucial to the validity of the termination, constituted such an exception. The NLRC correctly considered the fatal discrepancy in the dates, which cast grave doubt on the integrity of the entire testing procedure.
On the substantive merits, the Court emphasized that the burden of proving a valid cause for dismissal rests solely on the employer. The anomalous sequence of test dates created reasonable doubt that respondents were guilty of drug use. Petitioners failed to indubitably prove the required serious misconduct. Since no clear, valid, and legal cause for termination was established, the dismissal was illegal. The employer’s responsibility to ensure properly administered tests was not discharged. The deletion of damages by the Court of Appeals was sustained, as bad faith was not proven.