G.R. No. 181480 - JOSEFINA CADA, VS. TIME SAVER LAUNDRY/LESLIE PEREZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding complainant to have been illegally dismissed, she is entitled to payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement as aforestated and backwages. Accordingly, respondents Time Saver Laundry and Leslie Perez are hereby ordered to pay complainant the following: P 7,280.00 - separation pay P80,563.17 - backwages from May 7, 2003 to date of this decision which will further be computed until finality of this decision P 5,670.00 - salary differentials from September 28, 2002 to May 7, 2003 P 5,670.60 - ECOLA P29,534.38 - overtime pay P128,718.75 - TOTAL P12,871.88 - 10% of the total award as and by way of attorney's fees. P141,590.63 - TOTAL MONETARY AWARD All other claims are ordered DISMISSED for lack of merit. [10] On 21 June 2004, respondents appealed to the NLRC [11] essentially arguing that they were denied due process on the ground of improper service of summons and that the monetary award in favor of petitioner was without basis. Respondents' appeal was docketed as CA No. 040723-04. The NLRC issued its Resolution dated 30 November 2004, sustaining the finding of the Labor Arbiter that petitioner was illegally dismissed: Conclusively of first impression, [herein petitioner] filed her verified complaint on May 21, 2003, alleging among others, the fact of her dismissal on May 7, 2003. Thereafter, [petitioner] submitted her verified Position Paper which takes the place of her direct testimonies which substantiate her claim for illegal dismissal, stating with particularity the facts attending her illegal dismissal as follows: "x x x. On May 7, 2003, while working, her attention was called to the Office by Management and accused her of quarreling with an employee of the Company. From there, and without giving her an opportunity to explain and defend her side, was sent home and prevented to work further. x x x" (Complainant's Position Paper, p. 1, Record, p. 13) In this jurisdiction, it is the unwavering rule that the "onus probandi" to show that the dismissal of an employee from service is for cause and due process rests upon the shoulders of the employer. Failure to discharge this burden, the dismissal is tainted with illegality. At bar, [herein respondents] failed to discharge this burden. A mere denial that they did not dismiss the [petitioner] is not a sufficient measure of the required proof to belie or controvert the latter's assertion that she was dismissed from service, much less, illegally; more so, when [petitioner] satisfactorily narrated the ultimate facts attending her dismissal. In fine, for want of just or authorized cause and in the absence of due process, the dismissal of [petitioner] from service is therefore tainted with illegality. [12] The NLRC did not give credence to respondents' argument that they were denied due process: The issue interposed by the [respondents] that their right to due process was denied in the discernment of the present dispute is now rendered moot and academic as We give (sic) them the op