TRI-C GENERAL SERVICES v. NOLASCO B. MATUTO, et al.

G.R. No. 194686, 23 September 2015 (Peralta, J.)

The employer has the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized
cause. However, it is likewise incumbent upon the employees that they should first establish by
competent evidence the fact of their dismissal from employment.

Tri-C General Services, Inc. (Tri-C) is a manpower agency engaged in the business of
supplying services to all PLDT business offices in Laguna. Matuto, Magno, and Lavia (Matuto, et al.)
were hired by Tri-C as janitors/janitresses assigned at the PLDT business office in Calamba City.
Matuto, et al. averred that they were the first complainants against Tri-C for underpayment of
wages and violation of labor standards, for which the Labor Arbiter ordered the company to pay
them their underpaid salaries. They alleged that since then, they earned the ire of the company and
experienced harassment and intimidation.

In November, 2004, they were barred from their work place in Calamba City. Because of
this, they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the company. They aver that even assuming
the company had a valid ground to terminate them; they were not furnished the required notices.
They merely received a notice informing them of their termination effective on the same date of
notice. On the other hand, the company denied liability. In October, 2004, they were informed by
PLDT-Laguna that they would implement cost cutting measures and would discontinue the services
of Matuto, et al.. The company thus had no recourse but to place them on floating status upon
termination of clients contract since their services were entirely dependent on the need for
janitorial services of its clients.

The complaint for illegal dismissal was premature since it was filed before the six months
period for placing an employee on floating status had lapsed. In reply to respondents position
paper, the company averred that it notified them thru several letters, first of the Notice of Transfer,
and subsequent notice informing them of their termination when they failed to report for
reassignment, Thus the company deemed them guilty of abandonment. The Labor Arbiter (LA)
dismissed the complaint. The National Labor Relation Commission (NLRC) affirmed the ruling of
the LA. On petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), the latter reversed the NLRC
decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Matuto, et al. were constructively dismissed.

RULING:

NO. The Court is not unmindful of the rule in labor cases that the employer has the burden
of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. However, it is likewise
incumbent upon the employees that they should first establish by competent evidence the fact of
their dismissal from employment. As an allegation is not evidence, it is elementary that a party
alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence. It was also stressed
that the evidence to prove the fact of dismissal must be clear, positive and convincing.

In the present case, the facts and the evidence do not establish a prima facie case that
Matuto, et al. were dismissed from employment. Aside from their mere assertion and joint affidavit,
Matuto, et al. failed to adduce corroborative and competent evidence to substantiate their
conclusion that they were dismissed from employment. Matuto, et al. did not even present the
alleged notice of termination of their employment. Therefore, in the absence of any showing of an
overt or positive act proving that petitioner had dismissed respondents, the latters claim of illegal
dismissal cannot be sustained as the same would be self-serving, conjectural and of no probative
value.

The records are devoid of any indication that they were barred from Tri-Cs premises or
were otherwise deprived of any work assignment after the discontinuance of their work in PLDT-
Calamba. It was also not shown that Matuto, et al. reported or even tried to report to Tri-Cs office
and requested for another work assignment after being dismissed from PLDT-Calamba. On the
contrary, the evidence presented by Tri-C showed that they were repeatedly summoned to report
to its main office and did not even bother to show despite several notices. Moreover, the rule that
the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no application in a case, like
the present petition, where the employer denied having dismissed the employees.