LEGAL NOTE 0059: IF DOUBT EXISTS BETWEEN THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE EMPLOYER AND THE EMPLOYEE, THE SCALES OF JUSTICE MUST BE TILTED IN FAVOR OF THE EMPLOYEE.

 

SOURCE: LORES REALTY ENTERPRISES, INC., LORENZO Y. SUMULONG III VS. VIRGINIA E. PACIA (G.R. NO.  171189, 9 MARCH 2011, MENDOZA, J.) SUBJECT: TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT; AWARD OF DAMAGES (BRIEF TITLE: LORES REALTY VS. PACIA).

 

 STORY OF THE CASE:

 

SUMULONG DIRECTED ACCOUNTING MANAGER PACIA TO PREPARE CHECK TO BPI. SHE PREPARED BUT AFTER MUCH DELAY. THIS WAS REPEATED. PACIA EXPLAINED THAT SHE DELAYED THE PREPARATION OF THE CHECKS BECAUSE AT THAT TIME THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR THE CHECK. PACIA WAS DISMISSED. THE LABOR ARBITER RULED THERE WAS NO ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. NLRC REVERSED. CA CONFIRMED.

 

WHAS THERE ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.

 

YES. WHILE THERE WAS DOUBT AS TO WHO IS RIGHT, THAT DOUBT SHALL BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF LABOR.

 

SAID THE COURT:

 

 Let it be noted at this point that the Court finds nothing unlawful in the directive of Sumulong to prepare checks in payment of LREI’s obligations. The availability or unavailability of sufficient funds to cover the check is immaterial in the physical preparation of the checks.

Pacia’s initial reluctance to prepare the checks, however, which was seemingly an act of disrespect and defiance, was for honest and well intentioned reasons. Protecting LREI and Sumulong from liability under the Bouncing Checks Law[18] was foremost in her mind.  It was not wrongful or willful. Neither can it be considered an obstinate defiance of company authority.  The Court takes into consideration that Pacia, despite her initial reluctance, eventually did prepare the checks on the same day she was tasked to do it.

The Court also finds it difficult to subscribe to LREI and Sumulongs’s contention that the reason for Pacia’s initial reluctance to prepare the checks was a mere afterthought considering that “check no. 0000737527 under one of the check vouchers she reluctantly prepared, bounced when it was deposited.”[19] Pacia’s apprehension was justified when the check was dishonored.  This clearly affirms her assertion that she was just being cautious and circumspect for the company’s sake.  Thus, her actuation should not be construed as improper conduct.      

 In finding for Pacia, the Court is guided by the time-honored principle that if doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. The rule in controversies between a laborer and his master distinctly states that doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing, should be resolved in the former’s favor.[20]

* Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, per Special Order No. 933 dated January 24, 2011.

[1] Rollo, pp. 32-42. Penned by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa concurred in by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes (now Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals) and Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang.

[2] Id. at 52-59. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier with Commissioner Ireneo B.Bernardo and Commissioner Tito E. Genilo, concurring.

[3] Id. at 74.

[4] Batas Pamabansa Blg. 22.

[5] Rollo p. 75.

[6] Id. at 49.

[7] Id. at 50.

[8] Id. at 60-65.

[9] Id. at 52-59.

[10] Citations omitted.

[11] Rollo, pp. 32-42.

[12] Id. at 159.

[13] Gabunas, Sr. v. Scanmar Maritime Services Inc., G.R. No. 188637, December 15, 2010.

[14] Diamond Motors Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 462 Phil. 452, 458 (2003).

[15] Rollo, p. 170.

[16] Id. at 145.

[17]Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Marbella, G.R. No. 149074, August 10, 2006, 498 SCRA 389, 395, citing  Bascon v. Court of Appeals, 466 Phil. 719, 730 (2004), citing Dimabayao v. National Labor Relations Commission, 363 Phil. 279, 284 (1999).

[18] Supra note 4.

[19] Rollo, p. 41 and 56.

[20] E.G. & I Corporation v. Sato, G.R. No. 182070, February 16, 2011.