San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC 161 SCRA 719

FACTS:

The respondent Ernesto Ibias was employed by the petitioner SMC on December 24, 1978 as an operator.

According to SMCs Policy on Employee Conduct, absences without permission or AWOP are absences not covered either by a certification of the plant doctor that the employee was absent due to sickness or by duly approved application for leave of absence filed at least 6 days prior to the intended leave, are subject to disciplinary action.

The same policy also punishes falsification of company documents or records.

The respondent was AWOP on the following dates:

Ø  January 2, 4, 11 1997

Ø  April 26, 28, 29 1997

Ø  May 5, 7, 8, 13, 21, 22, 28, and 29 1997

For his absences on January 2, 4, 11 and April 28 and 29, he was given a written warning that he incurred 5 AWOPs and for his absences on April 28 and 29 and May 7 and 8, the respondent was alleged to have falsified his medical consultation card.

Ø  On June 17 and 23 1997, SMC conducted an administrative investigation and concluded that the respondent committed offenses of excessive AWOPs and falsification of company documents and accordingly dismissed him.

Ø  On March 30, 1998, respondent filed a complaint against SMC for illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter found that the imposition of termination of employment based on his AWOPs was disproportionate since SMC failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that it had strictly implemented its company policy on absences. It also noted that termination based on the alleged falsification of company records was unjustified in because SMC failed to establish respondent’s guilt.  

ü  On September 2, 1998 the labor arbiter rendered his decision that the respondent was illegally dismissed and ordered for reinstatement and payment of full back wages, benefits and attorney’s fees.

ü  SMC appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission. The NLRC affirmed with modification the decision of the labor arbiter. NLRC found that there was already a strained relationship between the parties such that reinstatement was no longer feasible, so instead granted a separation pay equivalent to 1 month for every year of service. The NLRC deleted the award of attorney’s fees.

Ø  On September 3, 1999, SMC filed its Petition for Certiorari. The cases were consolidated.

Ø  On June 28, 2000, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming findings of the labor arbiter and the NLRC but modifying the monetary award. The Court of appeals disagreed with application of the doctrine of strained relations because it deprives an illegally dismissed employee of his right to reinstatement. The Court of Appeals ordered respondents back wages to be computed from the date of his dismissal up to the time when he was actually reinstated.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the findings of the labor arbiter and the NLRC and in dismissing SMC’s claims that respondent was terminated from service with just cause.

HELD:

Ø  The settled rule in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings is that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in determining the legality of an employer’s dismissal of an employee, and not even preponderance of evidence is necessary as substantial evidence is considered sufficient.

ü  In the case at bar, SMC was unable to prove, by substantial evidence, that it was respondent who made the unauthorized entries. SMCs Guide on Employee Conduct punishes the act of falsification of company documents or records but it does not punish mere possession of a falsified document.

The issue of unauthorized absences, however, is another matter.

Ø  SMC acted well within its rights when it dismissed respondent for his numerous absences. Respondent was afforded due process and was validly dismissed for cause. The respondent was not punished for his subsequent AWOPs and he was aware of the number of AWOPs he incurred but still incurred futher AWOPs.

ü  Respondents argue that the SMC is inconsistent in the implementation of its policy on employees attendance. The Court disagreed, stating that “in the implementation of its rules and policies, the employer has the choice to do so strictly or not, since this is inherent in its right to control and manage its business effectively.”

Petition granted.