G.R. No. 173256 - AFI INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION (ZAMBOANGA BUYING STATION) AND CELEDONIO RAYMUNDO, JR., VS. DENNIS G. LORENZO AND CECILIO S. SORSAN.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it sustained the award of backwages and separation pay in favor of the respondents. AFI filed a motion for reconsideration, but the Court of Appeals denied it on May 26, 2006. [7] Hence, this appeal by petitioners, positing that: THE HONORABLE COURT COMMITTED SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR IN REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC). [8] Relying upon the basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation, petitioners assert that respondents failed to establish that they had been illegally dismissed. Respondents offered no proof to substantiate their barefaced allegation of dismissal. Thus, they fault the Court of Appeals for sustaining respondents. As stated at the outset, in illegal dismissal cases, the employer is burdened to prove just cause for terminating the employment of its employees with clear and convincing evidence. Article 277(b) of the Labor Code [9] of the Philippines puts on the employer the burden of proving that the dismissal of an employee was for a valid or authorized cause, whether the latter admits or does not admit the dismissal. [10] Thus, petitioners must not only rely on the weakness of respondents evidence, but must stand on the merits of their own defense. [11] Petitioners denied that they dismissed the respondents. They insist that there was no overt or positive act of termination to justify the respondents claim of illegal termination. Such protestation strikes the Court as a strained attempt to rationalize an untenable position. Notably, before the Labor Arbiter, petitioners never denied that respondents were terminated. In fact, they vehemently justified respondents dismissal claiming that it was for just cause and upon compliance with due process. [12] It was only when the NLRC ruled, albeit erroneously, that respondents voluntarily terminated their employment, that petitioners sang a different song, so to speak, and denied that respondents were dismissed. This Court will not allow this obvious turnaround. The change of theory by the petitioners at this stage cannot prosper. Respondents were dismissed for gross and habitual neglect of duty. Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one's duties, while habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances. The single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee. [13] In this light, we agree with the following disquisition of the Court of Appeals rejecting petitioners claim: [C]ontrary to its claim, [petitioners] utterly failed to show that [respondents] committed gross neglect of duty as to warrant their dismissal. Based on the records, [respondents] had been working for private respondents as raw processors of marine and seafood products for 10 years and as far as employer-employee relationship is concerned, those 10 years wer