G.R. No. 123520 Case Digest

G.R. No. 123520, June 26, 1998

National Semiconductor Distribution, Ltd., petitioner,

vs NLRC and Edgar Philip Santos, respondents

Ponente: Bellosillo

Issue: (1) Who has the burden of providing a claim for night shift differential pay, the worker who claims not to have been paid night shift differentials, or the employer in custody of pertinent documents which would prove the fact of payment of the same? (2) Were the requirements of due process substantially complied with in dismissing the worker?

Facts: 

NSC a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the Phil. manufactures and assembles electronic parts for export in mactan, lapu-lapu city. Santos was employed by NSC as a technicioan in its special products group assigned to the graveyard shift from 10pm-6am.

On January 8, 1993 Santos did not report for work on his shift. He resumed his duties as night shift on January 9. However, at the end of his shift, he made 2 entries in his DTR to make it appear that he worked on both the 8th and 9th.

His supervisor Limisiaco, received the report that there was no technician in the graveyard shift on January 8. Limsiaco then checked the DTRs and found out that Santos did not report on 8th and have found in the DTR the otherwise.

Informal investigation were conducted by management and have required Santos to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for dishonesty, falsifying DTR and violation of company rules. Santos explain that he was sick on the 8th and his DTR was a mere oversight or carelessness on his part.

Not satisfied with the explanation, NSC dismissed Santos for the violations made. Santos then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages and other money claims.

Labor arbiter found that Santos was dismissed on legal grounds although he was not afforded due process, ordering NSC to indemnify him and the unpaid night shift differentials.

NSC appealed to NLRC, but NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter holding that the conclusions were sufficiently supported by the evidence.

NSC now imputes grave abuse of discretion to NLRC in affirming the labor arbiter. Contending that the night shift differentials were never raised as an issue nor pusued by Santos; also denied that Santos was not given due process because he was afforded ample opportunity to be heard.

Issues: (1) Was Santos illegally dismissed? (2) Santos entitled for the money claims?

Ruling:

The fact that Santos neglected to substantiate his claim for night shift differentials is not prejudicial to his cause. After all, the burden of proving payment rests on petitioner NSC. Santos' allegation of non-payment of this benefit, to which he is by law entitled, is a negative allegation which need not be supported by evidence unless it is an essential part of his cause of action. It must be noted that his main cause of action is his illegal dismissal, and the claim for night shift differential is but an incident of the protest against such dismissal. Thus, the burden of proving that payment of such benefit has been made rests upon the party who will suffer if no evidence at all is presented by either party. By choosing not to fully and completely disclose information to prove that it had paid all the night shift differentials due to private respondent, petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof. 

On the issue of due process, we agree with petitioner that Santos was accorded full opportunity to be heard before he was dismissed.

The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side. In the instant case, petitioner furnished private respondent notice as to the particular acts which constituted the ground for his dismissal. By requiring him to submit a written explanation within 48 hours from receipt of the notice, the company gave him the opportunity to be heard in his defense. Private respondent availed of this chance by submitting a written explanation. Furthermore, investigations on the incident were actually conducted.

Finally, private respondent was notified on 14 January 1993 of the management's decision to terminate his services.

Thus, it is clear the minimum requirements of due process have been fulfilled by petitioner.

Petition Dismissed.