G.R. No. 129329 ; July 31, 2001
ESTER M. ASUNCION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Second Division, MABINI MEDICAL CLINIC and DR. WILFRIDO JUCO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ester M. Asuncion was employed as an accountant/bookkeeper by respondent Mabini Medical Clinic on August 16, 1993. In May 1994, a routine DOLE inspection, prompted by petitioner’s disclosure, discovered labor standards violations such as non-coverage of employees with the SSS, which the clinic was made to correct. On August 9, 1994, respondent Dr. Wilfrido Juco issued a memorandum charging petitioner with chronic absenteeism (35 absences and 23 half-days), habitual tardiness (108 times), loitering, getting an absent employee’s salary without signing, and disobedience/insubordination for refusing to sign memos, requiring her to explain within two days. Petitioner submitted her response on the morning of August 12, 1994. On the same day, Dr. Juco dismissed her via a letter dated August 12, 1994, citing disobedience of lawful orders and failure to submit her reply within the two-day period. Petitioner filed a case for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, finding the dismissal illegal due to the respondents’ failure to present concrete evidence like time cards or logbooks to prove the charges, awarding reinstatement, backwages, damages, and attorney’s fees. The NLRC reversed this decision on appeal, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit but ordering the respondents to pay petitioner three months’ salary for procedural due process violation. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the public respondent NLRC erred in finding that the petitioner was dismissed by the private respondent for a just or authorized cause.

RULING

Yes, the NLRC erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the NLRC Decision and Resolution and reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s Decision with modification. The Court found a lack of clear and convincing evidence to substantiate the charges of absenteeism and tardiness. The employer’s evidence—mere unsigned handwritten listings and unsigned handwritten annotations on computer print-outs—were unauthenticated, unreliable, and self-serving, lacking rational probative value. The failure to present the record book mentioned in the notice of termination gave rise to a presumption of suppression of adverse evidence. The employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just cause. Furthermore, the dismissal was procedurally defective; the notice of termination was issued on the same day petitioner submitted her explanation, denying her a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The award of moral and exemplary damages was deleted for lack of basis, but the awards for reinstatement, full backwages, and attorney’s fees were reinstated.