G.R. No. 84688 August 20, 1990
FOODMINE, INCORPORATED (KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN), petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and NUWHRAIN-KENTUCKY CHAPTER and REYNALDO L. ESCOLANO, respondents.

FACTS

Reynaldo L. Escolano, a regular employee (chopper) for six years at petitioner’s outlet, was dismissed on September 20, 1985. The termination was based on an alleged incident on September 10, 1985, where he was accused by co-employee Milagros Paz of hitting her cheek and grabbing her left breast inside the company’s processing area during a coffee break. The incident reportedly began when Paz, complaining about a broken labeling gun, pointed an accusing finger at Escolano, leading to the alleged physical altercation. Petitioner served a termination memorandum on Escolano on October 3, 1985, citing serious misconduct.
Escolano filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, finding the preponderance of evidence supported Escolano’s version. The Arbiter gave more credence to Escolano’s testimony, which was corroborated by fellow employee-witnesses, noting they would not risk their own employment to give false adversarial testimony. The Arbiter also found that any contact appeared accidental, not intentional, and dismissed the unauthenticated, unsworn medical certificate submitted by the petitioner. The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of Reynaldo L. Escolano by Foodmine, Inc. was valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the NLRC’s finding of illegal dismissal. The Court emphasized that factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive and binding if there is no showing of grave abuse of discretion. Here, petitioner failed to substantiate its claim of serious misconduct with credible evidence. The Court noted the Labor Arbiter correctly found the testimonies of Escolano’s witnesses more credible, as they were disinterested co-employees who risked their own positions to testify.
The legal logic is twofold. First, on the substantive aspect, the employer bears the burden of proving just cause for dismissal by substantial evidence. Petitioner’s evidence, primarily the uncorroborated accusation of Paz and an inadmissible medical certificate, was insufficient to meet this burden and overcome the consistent testimonies of other employees. Second, on the procedural aspect, the records failed to show that Escolano was afforded due process prior to his summary dismissal. Furthermore, even assuming the incident occurred as alleged, the penalty of dismissal was disproportionately severe for a first offense after six years of service, violating the principle that the penalty must be commensurate to the offense. Thus, the dismissal was illegal for lack of both just cause and due process.