4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly investigation upon such issues. Since NLRC relied on the available evidence obtaining in the records of this case, it should have followed the well-settled doctrine that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer (as represented by the local employment agency in this case) and the employee, the doubts must be resolved in favor of the employee.[21] As regards the issue of petitioner's dismissal from employment, petitioner claims that he was illegally dismissed; that respondent I.T. failed to substantiate its claim that petitioner was repatriated because he (petitioner) was found to have hypertension; and that respondent I.T. has the burden of proving that petitioner was legally dismissed. We rule for the petitioner. When the NLRC declared that the burden of proof in dismissal cases shifts to the employer only when the latter admits such dismissal, the NLRC ruled erroneously in disregard of the law and prevailing jurisprudence on the matter. As correctly articulated by the Solicitor General in his Comment to this petition, thus - "Article 277(b) of the Labor Code puts the burden of proving that dismissal of an employee was for a valid or authorized cause on employer. It should be noted that the said provision of law does distinguish whether the employer admits or does not admit dismissal. the the not the It is a well-known maxim in statutory construction that where the law does not distinguish, the court should not distinguish (Robles vs. Zambales Chromite Mining Co., 104 Phil. 688). Moreover, Article 4 of the Labor Code provides: `Art. 4. Construction in favor of labor. All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.' In Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA, 166 SCRA 533, this Honorable Court held: 'When the conflicting interest of labor and capital are weighed on the scales of social justice, the heavier influence of the latter must be counterbalanced by the sympathy and compassion the law must accord the underprivileged worker. This is only fair if he is to be given the opportunity- and the rightto assert and defend his cause not as a subordinate but as a peer of management, with which he can negotiate on even plane. Labor is not a mere employee of capital but its active and equal partner.' Thus, it is clear that petitioner was illegally dismissed by private respondent Samir Maddah."[22] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52120 7/12