6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 2004, when she was dismissed and repatriated to the Philippines by SAENCO in June 2004. With this finding, it is unnecessary for the Court to still consider and address respondent's allegations that she had been misled into believing that her Employment Contract and visa was good for one year. Respondent decries that she was illegally dismissed, while petitioners assert that respondent was validly dismissed because of her expired work visa and her provocative and immoral conduct in violation of the club policies. The Court finds that respondent was illegally dismissed. Dismissal from employment has two facets: first, the legality of the act of dismissal, which constitutes substantive due process; and, second, the legality of the manner of dismissal, which constitutes procedural due process. The burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the disciplinary action was made for lawful cause or that the termination of employment was valid. Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of the employer do not provide legal justification for dismissing the employee. When in doubt, the case should be resolved in favor of labor pursuant to the social justice policy of our labor laws and the 1987 Constitution.[45] As previously discussed herein, SAENCO extended respondent's Employment Contract for another six months even after the latter's work visa already expired. Even though it is true that respondent could not legitimately continue to work in South Korea without a work visa, petitioners cannot invoke said reason alone to justify the premature termination of respondent's extended employment. Neither petitioners nor SAENCO can feign ignorance of the expiration of respondent's work visa at the same time as her original six-month employment period as they were the ones who facilitated and processed the requirements for respondent's employment in South Korea. Petitioners and SAENCO should also have been responsible for securing respondent's work visa for the extended period of her employment. Petitioners and SAENCO should not be allowed to escape liability for a wrong they themselves participated in or were responsible for. Petitioners additionally charge respondent with serious misconduct and willful disobedience, contending that respondent violated club policies by engaging in illegal activities such as wearing skimpy and revealing dresses, dancing in an immoral or provocative manner, and going out with customers after working hours. As evidence of respondent's purported club policy violations, petitioners submitted the joint affidavit of Tiatco and Flores, respondent's co-workers at the club. The Court, however, is not swayed. Aside from their bare allegations, petitioners failed to present concrete proof of the club policies allegedly violated by respondent. The club policies were not written down. There is no allegation, much less, evidence, that respondent was at least verbally apprised of the said club policies during her employment. To refute petitioners' assertions against her, respondent submitted a poster promoting the club and pictures[46] of respondent with her co-workers at the said club. Based on said poster and pictures, respondent did not appear to be wearing dresses that were elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64155 19/27