Rejoinder: National Labor Relations Commission
Rejoinder: National Labor Relations Commission
X---------------------------------------------------X
REJOINDER
1. Before the employer must bear the burden of proving that the
dismissal was legal, the employee must first establish by substantial
evidence the fact of his dismissal from service.1
1
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) v. Pulgar, 637 Phil. 244, 256 (2010).
2. All the complainant’s narration and allegations are bereft of
any merit. Both Positon Paper and Reply only alleged facts that are not true
nor substantiated by any documentary proof. Sadly, to speak of, the same
was just a baseless claim of herein complainants.
3. The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of
proving it; thus, petitioners were burdened to prove their allegation that
respondents dismissed them from their employment. It must be stressed
that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive and convincing.
The rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal
cases finds no application here because the respondents deny having
dismissed the petitioners.2
9. “It is a basic rule of evidence that each party must prove his
affirmative allegation.”6 If he claims a right granted by law, he must prove
his claim by competent evidence, relying on the strength of his own
evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his opponent. The test for
determining on whom the burden of proof lies is found in the result of an
inquiry as to which party would be successful if no evidence of such matters
were given.
3
ALLAN JOHN UY REYES v. GLOBAL BEER BELOW ZERO, INC., G.R. No. 222816, October 4, 2017
4
Nacague v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., 641 Phil. 377, 385 (2010).
5
ALLAN JOHN UY REYES v. GLOBAL BEER BELOW ZERO, INC., G.R. No. 222816, October 4, 2017
6
Lopez v. Bodega City (Video-Disco Kitchen of the Phils.) and/or Torres-Yap, 558 Phil. 666, 673 (2007).
10. In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the
employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause.
However, before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an employer-
employee relationship must first be established. Thus, in filing a complaint
before the LA for illegal dismissal, based on the premise that he was an
employee of respondents, it is incumbent upon petitioner to prove the
employer-employee relationship by substantial evidence.7
11. Before the employer must bear the burden of proving that the
dismissal was legal, the employee must first establish by substantial
evidence the fact of his dismissal from service.8
12. It is a basic rule of evidence that each party must prove his
affirmative allegation.9
15. In Abad v. Roselle Cinema, G.R. No. 141371, March 24, 2006,
the Supreme Court ruled that the substantial evidence proffered by the
employer that it had not terminated the employee should not be ignored
on the pretext that the employee would not have filed the complaint for
illegal dismissal if he had not really been dismissed. We held that such non
sequitur reasoning cannot take the place of the evidence of both the
employer and the employee.
7
JESUS G. REYES v. GLAUCOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC., G.R. No. 189255, June 17, 2015.
8
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) v. Pulgar, 637 Phil. 244, 256 (2010)
9
Lopez v. Bodega City (Video-Disco Kitchen of the Phils.) and/or Torres-Yap, 558 Phil. 666, 673 (2007).
10
JESUS G. REYES v. GLAUCOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC., G.R. No. 189255, June 17, 2015.
16. It is crystal clear from the Position Paper and Reply submitted
by the complainants that their allegations are just based on their
conjectures, surmises and suppositions. No documentary proof was ever
submitted by the complainants that they were indeed dismissed by the
respondents. All their allegations are clearly considered as hearsay.
18. It is settled that the law serves to equalize the unequal. The
labor force is a special class that is constitutionally protected because of the
inequality between capital and labor. This constitutional protection
presupposes that the labor force is weak. However, the level of protection
to labor should vary from case to case; otherwise, the state might appear to
be too paternalistic in affording protection to labor.12
11
Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v. Ramonchito T. Alcon and Joann S. Papa, G.R. No.
194884, October 22, 2014, citing Mercury Drug Corporation v. NLRC, 258 Phil. 384, 391 (1989).
12
Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Arlene S Espiritu, G.R. Nos. 204944-45, December 3, 2014.
13
Javier v. Fly Ace Corporation, G.R. No. 192558, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 382, 399-400.
PRAYER
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
EDISON CHAN
President, GBS
Respondents