support those factual findings. The same holds true when it is perceived that far
too much is concluded, inferred, or deduced from the bare or incomplete facts
appearing of record.[27]
Accordingly, the rule that the factual findings of the administrative bodies
are accorded great weight and respect and even finality by this Court does not
apply in the present case because of the apparent conflict in the findings of the
administrative bodies and that of the appellate court. This Court therefore finds it
necessary to go over the records of the case to determine whether the dismissal of
the respondents has been properly proven by substantial evidence.
It must be noted that in termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the
employer to show that the dismissal of the employee is for just cause and failure to
do so would mean that the dismissal is not justified. This is in consonance with the
guarantee of security of tenure in the Constitution[28] and elaborated in the Labor
Code.[29] A dismissed employee is not required to prove his innocence of the
charges leveled against him by his employer.[30] The determination of the existence
and sufficiency of a just cause must be exercised with fairness and in good faith
and after observing due process.[31] Hence, there are two requisites which must
be complied with by an employer for a valid dismissal, to wit:
I.
the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause; and,
II. the employee must be afforded due process, i.e., he must be given
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.
The Labor Code, as amended, laid down the just or valid causes in
dismissing an employee, thus:
Art. 282. TERMINATION BY EMPLOYER. – An employer 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;