G.R. NO. 149371 - ABERDEEN COURT, INC., AND RICHARD NG, VS. MATEO C. AGUSTIN JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: Ordering respondent ABERDEEN COURT, INC. to reinstate to his former position without loss of seniority rights complainant MATEO C. AGUSTIN, JR. Ordering respondent to pay to complainant backwages in the sum of PHP P175,933.33. [7] Petitioners appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On February 29, 2000, the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and held that Agustin had not been illegally dismissed, disposing thus: WHEREFORE, for and on account of the reasons above-discussed, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside and a new one entered dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. [8] From the NLRC decision, Agustin filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court ruled in favor of Agustin and reasoned thus: Constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving demotion in rank and a diminution in pay (Jarcia Machine Shop and Auto Supply, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 266 SCRA 97, 108). As there is no showing in the record of any circumstance to support the proposition that the petitioner was constructively dismissed, the private respondents correctly point out the flaw in the first ground proffered by the petitioner in support of his petition. Be that as it may, the petitioner's erroneous choice of terminology does not, to our mind, preclude a finding of illegal dismissal. Alongside the private respondents' contention that it was the petitioner who unceremoniously quit his employment after being confronted with his negligence, greater stock m[a]y be taken of the petitioner's immediate recourse for assistance from the Department of Labor and his subsequent filing of his complaint. The rule is settled that the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with abandonment (Pampanga Sugar Development Company, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 272 SCRA 737, 747) and, in such cases, the burden of proof to establish the validity of the dismissal of an employee lies on the employer (Gonpu Services Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 266 SCRA 657, 662). Rather than the employee who must prove its invalidity, it is the employer who should prove the validity of a dismissal. (Sanyo Travel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 280 SCRA 129, 138) and failure to do so will result in a finding that the dismissal was unfounded (Reformist Union of R.B. Liner, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commissions, 266 SCRA 713, 726). Our perusal of the record yielded no showing of satisfactory attempt on the part of the private respondents to prove the validity of the petitioner's dismissal. It bears emphasizing that, to be lawful, the employee's dismissal must comply with the following requirements (a) the dismissal must be for a