G.R. No. 174585; October 19, 2007
FEDERICO M. LEDESMA, JR., Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Federico Ledesma, Jr., a probationary bus driver for Philippine Nautical Training Institute (PNTI), filed a complaint on November 11, 2000, against his supervisor, Pablo Manolo de Leon, for alleged abuse of authority and immoral conduct. In apparent retaliation, de Leon reported to management on November 27, 2000, that he suspected Ledesma of using illegal drugs. On November 29, PNTI’s HR Manager served Ledesma a Notice to Explain regarding the drug allegation. Ledesma alleged that upon receiving the notice, the HR Manager and a company Vice-President immediately declared his dismissal, citing a positive drug test, and pressured him to sign a resignation letter. He was denied entry to the worksite the next day.
Ledesma subsequently obtained a negative drug test result from an independent clinic and attempted to report back to work, but was barred from the premises. He thus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. PNTI countered that Ledesma was never dismissed; he was merely served a notice to explain and subsequently abandoned his job. The company presented pay vouchers signed by Ledesma on December 3 and 9, 2000, for his salary and 13th-month pay, respectively, as proof he was not barred from the premises and had voluntarily severed employment.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner Federico Ledesma, Jr. was illegally dismissed from his employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that Ledesma was not illegally dismissed. The Court emphasized that in termination disputes, the burden of proof rests on the employee to substantiate the fact of dismissal. Ledesma’s claim of verbal dismissal on November 29, 2000, was contradicted by the company’s evidence that he subsequently received his final salary and 13th-month pay at the worksite on December 3 and 9. His signatures on the corresponding pay vouchers severely undermined his assertion that he was banned from the premises. These acts were inconsistent with the behavior of someone who had been summarily terminated.
The Court found that PNTi had not commenced any formal dismissal proceeding; it had only initiated an investigation by serving a Notice to Explain. Ledesma’s premature filing of the illegal dismissal complaint, before submitting any explanation or awaiting the investigation’s outcome, indicated he had effectively abandoned his job. The ruling affirmed the decisions of the NLRC and Court of Appeals, which ordered his reinstatement without backwages due to the absence of a dismissal but recognized his failure to follow company procedure. The Court balanced the scales of justice, noting that while labor is entitled to protection, this cannot justify an injustice to the employer when the evidence does not support the employee’s claim.