Emmanuel M. Meris, et al. v. Electruck Asia, Inc. and National Labor Relations Commission

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED, hereby reversing and setting aside the two (2) resolutions (promulgated on May 28, 1997 and July 31, 1997) of the public respondent (National Labor Relations Commission) in NLRC Case No. RAB-III-02-6770-96, RAB III-03-6902-96. The private respondent is hereby ordered to reinstate the fifty-five (55) workers without loss of seniority rights and privileges and with full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, to be computed from their dismissal on January 20, 1996 up to actual reinstatement. No pronouncement as to costs. (Underscoring supplied) In reversing the NLRC, the appellate court held that both the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter failed to anchor their conclusions upon substantial evidence. At the outset, it should be stressed that the petitioners are not required to prove their innocence of the charges leveled against them by their employer. A su converso , the employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a just cause. x x x x x x Besides, if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. It is a time honored rule that in controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in the formers favor. The policy is to extend the doctrine to a greater number of employees who can avail of the benefits under the law, which is in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and protection to labor. x x x Ostensibly, the respondents belabored the misimpression that the onus probandi of refuting the charges rests upon the petitioners. The respondent corporation ipsi dixit admitted that The incident, as witnessed by Mr. Datson, did not require further investigation. x x x No further explanation can exculpate complainants from their culpability. The eyewitness account of Mr. Datson is sufficient as he has no reason to fabricate a cause for complainants termination. Such a vague, all encompassing pretext as loss of confidence, if unqualifiedly given the seal of approval by this Court, could readily reduce to barren form the words of the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. Like a deck of cards, this stack of imprecise argumentation collapses on account of its egregious incongruity with the law and its sheer reliance on speculative inferences. In pari passu , the charges against the petitioners cannot be categorized as gross habitual neglect of duties, in order to constitute a just cause for the employees dismissal , the neglect of duties must not only be gross but also habitual. There was no showing whatsoever that the alleged absence of diligence of an ordinarily prudent man was committed repeatedly . Besides, Datsons statement cannot be taken as Gospel truth lock, stock and ba