Sevilla v. I.T. (International) Corp.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Omar Sevillana was contracted by I.T. (International) Corporation for its foreign principal, Samir Maddah, to work as a driver in Saudi Arabia for two years with a monthly salary of US $370.00. Sevillana alleged that he was only paid US $100.00 per month for twelve months and was repatriated without valid reason, shouldering his own return airfare. He filed a complaint for underpayment of salaries, illegal dismissal, reimbursement of airfare, moral damages, and attorney's fees. Procedural History: The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Adjudication Office ruled in favor of Sevillana, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable for salary differential, salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract, return airfare, and attorney's fees. I.T. (International) Corporation appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Second Division, which reversed the POEA decision, dismissing Sevillana's complaint. Sevillana then filed a petition with the Supreme Court. The Petition: This petition, initially filed as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, was treated as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Sevillana argued that the NLRC erred in holding that his affidavit could not be the basis of truth without cross-examination, in concluding he was not illegally dismissed, and in holding that neither party could be awarded reimbursement for his return ticket. The Supreme Court noted that the petition was filed before the ruling requiring appeals to go through the Court of Appeals, and that while a motion for reconsideration was not filed at the NLRC level, an exception applied due to the patent nullity of the assailed order. The Court found merit in the petition, agreeing that affidavits can suffice as evidence in labor proceedings and that the burden of proof for dismissal rests on the employer, especially when no valid cause or due process is shown. process is shown.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC erred in holding that the affidavit of complaint cannot be the basis of truth because the affiant was not cross-examined. Whether the NLRC erred in holding that the petitioner was illegally dismissed. Whether the NLRC erred in holding that neither party could be awarded reimbursement for the PAL ticket.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found merit in the petition. The assailed Resolution of the NLRC is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the Decision of the POEA Adjudication Office is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the affidavit of complaint being hearsay: The Court ruled that the NLRC erred in considering the petitioner's complaint-affidavit as mere hearsay evidence. Labor laws mandate speedy disposition with minimal technicalities, allowing quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC and POEA to decide cases based on position papers and documents without strict adherence to technical rules of evidence. The Solicitor General's observation, citing Rabago, et al. vs. NLRC and Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc., was quoted, emphasizing that affidavits can be the basis of truth even without cross-examination, especially when the opposing party has ample opportunity to rebut and fails to present contrary evidence. The Court found it to be grave abuse of discretion for the NLRC to ignore the complaint-affidavit without adequate reason not to believe its allegations. The fact that documents are prepared by an employee does not automatically make them self-serving if offered in proceedings where the employer had the opportunity to rebut their veracity. On the issue of illegal dismissal: The Court ruled that the petitioner was illegally dismissed. Article 277(b) of the Labor Code places the burden of proving a valid or authorized cause for dismissal on the employer, regardless of whether the employer admits the dismissal. This is consistent with the principle of construction in favor of labor under Article 4 of the Labor Code. The Court reiterated that for a dismissal to be valid, it must be for a valid cause and the employee must be afforded due process. The employer's claim of repatriation due to hypertension was unsubstantiated by any evidence, particularly a certification from a competent public health authority as required by law for dismissal due to disease. The POEA Adjudication Office's finding that the defense of medical problems was uncorroborated and not a just cause for termination was upheld. On the issue of reimbursement for the return airfare: The Court found merit in the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of his repatriation plane ticket. The record showed that private respondent I.T. failed to controvert this claim at the POEA level. The Court noted that the claim of payment by respondent I.T. was belated and unsubstantiated. The POEA Adjudication Office correctly held that respondents admitted the claim by failing to deny it and were liable for the repatriation expenses. The Certification from the Labor Attaché in Jeddah, stating that the petitioner purchased his own ticket, served as evidence, and private respondents failed to adduce proof that the employer purchased the ticket. Following the principle that he who pleads payment has the burden of proving it, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, the petitioner's evidence was given favorable consideration.
Main Doctrine
In labor cases, affidavits may serve as basis for decision even without cross-examination, as rules of evidence are not strictly observed. The burden of proving a valid dismissal rests on the employer, and a dismissal due to disease requires certification from a competent public health authority.