In criminal cases, the accused is presumed innocent until the prosecution has proven him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases, the plaintiff must, by preponderance of evidence, prove his claims against the defendants. In both civil and criminal cases, the principle is the same, the party making an accusation or allegation against another has the burden of proving it by the required quantum of evidence. Mere accusation or allegation is not evidence and will not be sufficient to get a conviction or an award.
In labor cases, however, particularly in termination disputes, it is the reverse. The burden of proving that the dismissal of the employee is not illegal rests squarely on the employer. By analogy, this is like saying that the accused employer is presumed guilty until he can prove by substantial evidence his innocence. The worker who claims before the labor arbiter that he has been illegally dismissed need not submit evidence or proof other than his written allegations under oath. On the other hand, the employer who terminated him must show convincing proof that there are valid grounds for such management decision, and that administrative due process has been strictly complied with.
The Supreme Court has often ruled that “in termination cases, the employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal of the employee is for a just or an authorized cause. Failure to dispose of the burden would imply that the dismissal is not lawful, and that the employee is entitled to reinstatement, backwages and accruing benefits. Moreover, dismissed employees are not required to prove their innocence of the employer’s accusations against them.” (San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC et. al., GR No. 153983, May 26, 2009). Furthermore, it declared that “the case of the employer must stand or fall on its own merits and not on the weakness of the employee’s defense. The alleged weakness of defense of the employee cannot operate to relieve nor discharge the employer of its burden in termination cases. This principle is designed to give flesh and blood to the guaranty of security of tenure granted by the Constitution to employees under the Labor Code.” (Dela Cruz vs. NLRC, 268 SCRA 458).
Given such a skewed state of affairs, does it mean that an employer cannot terminate his employees? Does it mean that the employer always loses in labor cases? Of course not. It only means that employers must take extra care when they terminate or discipline their employees and that they should not take labor law or labor cases for granted. Business-owners and managers ought to know the rules of the game if they want to survive and prosper.
Labor arbiters and officials are not psychics. They do not have ESP and they cannot read minds or tell who between the management or the worker is the one telling the truth. They were not present when the incidents in question happened. Labor arbiters and officials are however mandated to decide and rule in favor of labor if they find even a shadow of a doubt. Article 4 of the Labor Code provides: “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.” Article 1702 of the Civil Code states: “In case of doubt, all labor legislations and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.”
Business-owners and managers cannot and should not expect that, because of their higher educational attainment, or lofty economic and social status, and coat & tie-wearing lawyers, labor officials would simply take their word for it. They should not belittle the situation of the lowly worker, who does not even have a copy of his employment contract or pay slips, and who is represented by a non-lawyer in old denims and slippers, because his bare allegation carries more weight than the bare allegation of management. The social justice principle of “those who have less in life, should have more in law” works to the great advantage of the labor sector, which thrives on the stereotyped oppressive capitalist–oppressed laborer paradigm. Thus, accepting the reality that employers are presumed guilty until they have proven themselves innocent is the first step towards effective management-labor relations.
If you need labor lawyers, you can visit: http://ndvlaw.com/.
ReplyDelete