Pacific Maritime Services Inc vs Ranay : 111002 : July 21, 1997 : J. ...
2 of 4
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/111002.htm
working area and having a drinking spree with his brother Gerardo; and (4) failure of private
respondents to adjust to their working environment. The records, however, do not reveal that
petitioners ever presented any corroborative or additional evidence to buttress this allegation
other than photocopies of two Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation checks both for P1,919.85
and both dated October 3, 1989, allegedly paid to private respondents by Pacific, and
computations of private respondents wages, overtime pay and leave pay.[3]
On the basis of the parties submission, then POEA Administrator Jose N. Sarmiento
rendered a decision[4] dated November 6, 1990, which ruled that private respondents dismissal
was illegal for failure of petitioners to prove the legality thereof and to afford them due process.
He refused to give credence to the report made by Armando Villegas which was prepared long
after the events referred to therein had taken place. Accordingly, he ordered petitioners to pay
private respondents each in the amount of US$2,925.00 corresponding to their salaries for the
unexpired 6 and 1/2-month portion of their employment contracts; P15,566.85 each for their
unpaid salaries, overtime pay and leave pay; and plane fare for the return trip to the Philippines.
Furthermore, he found merit in private respondents claim that they were not paid their salaries,
overtime and vacation leave pay up to May 29, 1989, since the vouchers failed to show that the
checks intended to cover the amounts for the private respondents were duly acknowledged and
received by them. He pointed out that the columns for Received by and "Date were all in blank
and that, at any rate, the amount of P1,919.85 covered by each check was insufficient to pay for
what would be rightfully due to private respondents.
Aggrieved, petitioners appealed to the NLRC. On April 19, 1993, the Commission dismissed
said appeal and affirmed the decision of the POEA.[5] Hence, this petition.
As stated at the outset, the merit of this petition depends on petitioners strict compliance
with the requirements of both procedural and substantive due process, as well as their
observance of the principle that it is the employer who bears the burden of establishing by
substantial evidence the facts supporting a valid dismissal. Upon careful and meticulous scrutiny
of the records, however, the Court finds that the petition falls short of these standards. We are,
therefore, constrained to deny it and uphold the decision of the POEA and the NLRC.
The Court concedes that assault, invectives, obscene insult or offensive words against a
superior and imbibing intoxicating drinks during work may constitute serious misconduct which
would justify the dismissal of an employee found guilty thereof. We likewise agree that gross
neglect of duties as shown by tardiness and absenteeism, as well as willful disobedience and
insubordination, equally deserve the same penalty. These grounds are in fact well-supported by
jurisprudence.[6] These are not, however, the real and crucial issues. Before even determining
whether the acts of constitutes serious misconducts, insubordination, tardiness or absenteeism,
it is necessary to determine if, in the first place, the petitioners sufficiently established these acts
by substantial evidence. On this point, the Court rules that petitioners failed to do so.
Petitioners reliance on the telefax transmission signed by Armando Villegas is woefully
inadequate in meeting the required quantum of proof which is substantial evidence. For one
thing, the same is uncorroborated. Although substantial evidence is not a function of quantity but
rather of quality, the peculiar environmental circumstances of the instant case demand that
something more should have been proffered. According to the account of Villegas, it appears
that the incidents he was referring to transpired with the knowledge of some crew members. The
alleged assault by Gerardo Ranay on Villegas, for instance, was supposedly witnessed by at
least four other crew members. Surprisingly, none of them was called upon to testify, either in
person or through sworn statements. Worse, Villegas himself who omitted some vital details in
his report, such as the time and date of the incidents referred to, was not even presented as
witness so that private respondents and the POEA hearing officer could have been given an
opportunity to cross-examine and propound clarificatory questions regarding matters averred by
him in the telefax transmission.[7] Moreover, although signed, the same was not under oath and,
1/24/2016 9:26 PM