G.R. No. 229013 - INTERCONTINENTAL BROADCASTING, CORPORATION, VS. ANGELINO B. GUERRERO.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the instant Petition is GRANTED . The Decision dated April 16, 2014 and Resolution dated June 10, 2014 issued by public respondent National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC LAC Case No. 01-000416- 14 (NLRC NCR Case No. 08-11880-13) are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Private respondent Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation is hereby ordered to reinstate Angelino B. Guerrero without loss of seniority rights and to pay backwages from the time of his dismissal up to the time he is reinstated, less the period of suspension of six (6) months, plus 10% attorney's fees. SO ORDERED . [30] Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied under Resolution [31] dated November 24, 2016. The Present Petition Petitioner now invokes the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction to review and set aside the assailed dispositions of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner asserts that respondent's infractions constituted just causes for termination under Art. 282 (now Art. 297) of the Labor Code. In in this regard, petitioner essentially echoes the findings of the labor arbiter and the NLRC. [32] Respondent ripostes that petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that he was grossly negligent or that he committed gross misconduct in the performance of his duties. His termination was not justified considering that his primary function was that of a TOC Technician and not the task of superimposing logos, relative to which he was charged with gross negligence and gross misconduct. [33] Issue Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in finding respondent to have been illegally dismissed from employment? Ruling In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal. For this purpose, the employer must present substantial evidence to prove the legality of the employee's dismissal. [34] Substantial evidence is defined as "such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." [35] Here, we concur in the Court of Appeals' finding that petitioner failed to establish by substantial evidence that respondent was validly dismissed. Article 297 (formerly 282) of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes for termination, viz .: Art. 297. Termination by employer. An employee may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and (e) Other causes analogous to the foreg