Inconclusive

The legal grounds for dismissing an employee must be proven by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. This case illustrates when substantial evidence is lacking to prove the ground for dismissal.

This is the case of Arnold who had been working for a Rubber Company (PTRC) since Feb. 9, 1978. Through the years, he became the housekeeping coordinator at the general services department of PTRC receiving a monthly salary of P8,784. One of his duties was to recommend to the Company, for its approval, projects intended for beautification and maintenance of its premises. Also working in the Company is Mr. Dy, the administrative officer and head of the security and safety department who was apparently displeased with Arnold.        ‘

In January 1991, PTRC hired the services of Lito, a sign painter to paint its trash cans, push carts and cigarette waste boxes at the company premises. There was no contract or purchase order as to the price of the painting job. They just agreed that Lito’s services will be paid upon completion of the painting job and submission of the corresponding invoice.

On Feb. I5, 1991, Mr. Dy allegedly received from Lito a complaint that he was being forced by Arnold to overprice by P1,000 his service fee of P3,800 and to deliver to Arnold the said amount of P1,000; and that should Lito fail to do so, he will no longer be awarded future contracts. At the investigation conducted by Mr. Dy, Lito said that: “P3,500 lamang ang gusto ko sana, hindi ko alam kung biro o totoo ang sinabi niya.” He further told Abet that “Lakarin natin ito, ako ang bahala sa iyo.”     .

At this juncture, PTRC already assigned Arnold to perform janitorial duties, prompting him to request an immediate disposition of his case. And when Lito failed to submit his evidence within three days as directed, the Company sent him a notice terminating his services effective March 3, 1991 for extortion, fraud, serious misconduct and willful breach of trust and confidence. Was the Company correct?

No. There is neither direct nor documentary evidence to prove that Arnold was involved in extortion. In fact Lito did not categorically state that he was pressured by Arnold to overprice his service fee. It is not clear that Arnold urged or forced Lito to increase his service fee by P1,000 and to give the amount to him. Lito is not certain whether Arnold was really serious when he allegedly told him to increase his service fee to P4,800. Arnold was dismissed allegedly for asking, not receiving, the sum of P1,000 from Lito. This alleged request is not supported by any documentary evidence. No purchase order was presented to show that Lito was given a contract to prove that his services for painting trash cans and cigarette butt boxes at the company premises were for the price of P3,800. PTR failed to prove its charge by substantial evidence.

Arnold was therefore illegally dismissed and is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, full back wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld up to the time of his actual reinstatement. But since the company has completely ceased its tire manufacturing and marketing operations, the more equitable disposition would be an award of separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service. Since Arnold was employed from Feb. 9, 1978 to March 3, 1991 or for 13 years, with a monthly salary of P8,784, he is entitled to P1l4,192. (Philtread Tire and Rubber Corp. vs. Vicente, C.R: 142759, November 10, 2004).

Email: [email protected]