G.R. No. 157488 ; February 6, 2007
SOLGUS CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DIOSDADO TELIN and ALEJANDRO LAGOS, Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Diosdado Telin and Alejandro Lagos, along with several other security guards, filed complaints for illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages against their employer, petitioner Solgus Corporation. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints, finding that Telin, Lagos, and others had executed Affidavits of Desistance amicably settling their claims. The Arbiter also ruled that two other complainants were probationary employees not entitled to security of tenure, though they were awarded salary differentials.
Only Telin and Lagos appealed to the NLRC, specifically denying the execution of the affidavits and claiming they were never furnished a copy of the memorandum containing them to allow timely repudiation. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, ordering reinstatement and payment of backwages and benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC decision. Solgus elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC’s decision which set aside the Affidavits of Desistance and found the dismissals illegal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centered on procedural and substantive labor law principles. Procedurally, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 requires a showing of grave abuse of discretion, meaning a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment. The Court found none, as the appellate court correctly upheld the NLRC’s factual findings, which are accorded respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence.
Substantively, the Court upheld the NLRC’s rejection of the Affidavits of Desistance. The affidavits were deemed highly suspect. Certifications from the Clerk of Court indicated the documents were not on file in the notarial records, casting doubt on their authenticity. Furthermore, the employees’ prompt repudiation upon learning of the affidavits during appeal was deemed credible. In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer to prove the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. Solgus failed to discharge this burden. Its claims of abandonment and termination due to client request were unsubstantiated. Consequently, the dismissals were illegal, warranting reinstatement and backwages. The Court also affirmed the award of salary differentials due to underpayment below the statutory minimum wage.