G.R. No. 131405 July 20, 1999
LEILANI MENDOZA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ASIAN LAND STRATEGIES CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Leilani Mendoza was the Finance Manager of respondent Asian Land Strategies Corporation. On June 9, 1995, she was informed by company Vice-President Ma. Angela Celeridad that management had decided to terminate her employment, giving her the option to resign or face dismissal. Later that same day, company President Johnny P. Lee announced her termination. Consequently, Mendoza filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on June 23, 1995. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, awarding separation pay, back wages, moral damages, and attorney’s fees.
The private respondent corporation presented a contrasting narrative. It claimed Mendoza was not dismissed but was instead required to answer complaints from marketing agents alleging she deliberately delayed commission payments and demanded a “cut” before releasing funds. Despite being given time to reply, she failed to submit an explanation and stopped reporting for work on June 10, 1995. The company later sent her a notice to explain dated June 24, 1995, and, after an ex-parte investigation, considered her resigned as of June 15, 1995, due to loss of trust and confidence.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the National Labor Relations Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s decision and ruling that Mendoza was not illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition in part, finding Mendoza illegally dismissed. The Court held that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. On the claim of abandonment, the Court ruled it was not substantiated. Abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, which was absent here. Mendoza’s absence followed the unequivocal announcement of her termination by the company president, constituting a constructive dismissal.
Regarding the ground of loss of trust and confidence, the Court emphasized that for a dismissal on this basis to be valid, the employer must prove by substantial evidence the facts constituting the breach. The charges against Mendoza—delaying commissions and demanding a cut—were supported only by unverified affidavits from the complainants. The company failed to present any corroborative documentary evidence, such as disbursement vouchers or audit reports, to substantiate the alleged anomalies. Unsubstantiated accusations and generalized affidavits are insufficient to justify dismissal. The employer bears the burden of proof, and mere allegations do not meet the required standard of proof. Consequently, Mendoza’s dismissal was illegal. The Court modified the award, deleting moral damages for lack of sufficient basis but affirming the awards for separation pay and back wages.