GR 222939; (July, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 222939. July 3, 2019. MECO MANNING & CREWING SERVICES, INC. and CAPT. IGMEDIO G. SORRERA, Petitioners, vs. CONSTANTINO R. CUYOS, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Constantino R. Cuyos was hired by petitioner MECO Manning & Crewing Services, Inc., for its principal, as Second Marine Engineer for an eight-month contract. He boarded the vessel on December 12, 2007. Cuyos alleged he was subjected to mistreatment by the Chief Engineer, culminating in his forced disembarkation on February 18, 2008, after being told his working relationship with the Chief Engineer was untenable. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Petitioners, MECO and its President Capt. Igmedio G. Sorrera, claimed the dismissal was for just cause. They alleged Cuyos committed acts of insubordination, exhibited anger towards his superior, and attempted to assault the Chief Engineer with a spanner, justifying termination for serious misconduct and willful disobedience. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC upheld the dismissal, finding the termination valid.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC and finding respondent illegally dismissed.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s finding of illegal dismissal. The Court held that petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of dismissal for a just cause. The burden of proof rests on the employer to establish the factual and legal basis for termination. The evidence presented—unsigned facsimile messages, a decklog extract, and a letter from the Chief Engineer—were deemed insufficient. The documents were not properly authenticated and constituted hearsay, as the authors were not presented for cross-examination. The Court emphasized that unsubstantiated allegations, especially in termination cases, do not satisfy the quantum of proof required.
Consequently, Cuyos’ dismissal was illegal. Petitioners were held jointly and severally liable for the payment of his salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract, with interest. The liability of Capt. Sorrera was upheld as he was a corporate officer exercising control over the company’s operations, making him solidarily liable under the law. The monetary awards were subject to interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the finality of the decision until full payment.