[HOW TO DEAL WITH DOUBTS IN APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE]  NLRC set aside LA’s ruling.

 NLRC set aside LA’s ruling. As regards the failure to present the relevant
ASUNCION V. NLRC, MABINI MEDICAL CLINIC AND DR. WILFRIDO JUCO evidence, NLRC agreed with the LA. However, it ruled that P had admitted
JULY 31, 2001 | KAPUNAN, J. the tardiness and absences by offering justifications for the infractions.
 P filed MR  denied. P now goes to the SC
Petitioner/s: ESTER M. ASUNCION
Respondents: NLRC, MABINI MEDICAL CLINIC AND DR. WILFRIDO JUCO Issues/Ruling:
W/N NLRC erred in finding that the Petitioner was dismissed for a just or
Doctrine: If doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the authorized cause – YES, NLRC erred. The Petitioner was illegally dismissed.
employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. There’s paucity of evidence to establish the charges of absenteeism and tardiness.
 The company submitted mere handwritten listing and computer printouts.
The liberality of procedure in administrative actions is not absolute and does not The handwritten listing was not signed by the one who made the same. As
justify the total disregard of certain fundamental rules of evidence. Such that evidence regards the printouts, while the listing was computer-generated, the entries
without any rational probative value may not be made the basis of order or decision of of time and other annotations were again handwritten and unsigned.
administrative bodies.  The handwritten listing and unsigned computer printouts were
unauthenticated and thus, unreliable. These self-serving evidence should be
rejected, without any probative value, even in administrative proceedings.
Facts:  In IBM Phils. Inc., v. NLRC, it was held that the liberality of procedure in
 (P) Asuncion was employed as an accountant/bookkeeper by (PR) Mabini administrative actions is not absolute and does not justify the total disregard
Medical Clinic. In May 1994, officials of the NCR-Industrial Relations of the of certain fundamental rules of evidence. Such that evidence without any
DOLE conducted a routine inspection of the premises of the R company and rational probative value may not be made the basis of order or decision of
discovered upon disclosure of the P violations of the labor standards law administrative bodies.
such as the non-coverage from the SSS of the employees. R was made to  The liberality of procedure in administrative actions is subject to limitations
correct these violations. imposed by basic requirements of due process. While the rules of evidence
 PR later issued a memorandum to P charging her with the following prevailing in the courts of law or equity are not controlling in proceedings
offenses: before the NLRC, the evidence presented before it must at least have a
o Chronic Absenteeism – 35 absences and 23 half-days. modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value.
o Habitual Tardiness – late for 108x as shown in the record book  In the case at bar, both the handwritten listing and computer printouts being
o Loitering and wasting of company time-witnessed by several unsigned, the authenticity thereof is highly suspect and devoid of any
employees rational probative value especially in the light of the existence of the official
o Getting salary of an absent employee without acknowledging or record book of the petitioner’s alleged absences and tardiness in the
signing for it. possession of the employer company. Since the record book is the basis for
o Disobedience and insubordination- refusal to sign memos given to the charges against the P, it is the best evidence available. However, PR
her failed to present the same and failed to offer an explanation for its non-
 P was required to explain within 2 days why she should not be terminated presentation.
based on the above charges. However, she submitted her response 3 days  In reversing the decision of the LA, NLRC relied upon the supposed
later. admission of the petitioner of her habitual absenteeism and chronic
 On the same day, through a letter, Dr. Juco dismissed her on the ground of tardiness. According to P, there was a prior arrangement between her and
disobedience of lawful orders and for her failure to reply within 2 days. the PR that she would not be required to work on Saturdays. Private
 P filed a case for illegal dismissal. respondents have failed to deny the existence of this arrangement.
 (LA) Labor Arbiter declared her illegally dismissed.  The Court, likewise, takes note of the fact that the two-day period given to
o PR was unable to prove the allegation of chronic absenteeism as it petitioner to explain and answer the charges against her was most
failed to present in evidence the time cards, logbooks or record unreasonable, considering that she was charged with several offenses and
book which P signed recording her time in reporting for work. infractions (35 absences, 23 half-days and 108 tardiness), some of which
o These documents were in the possession of PR thus, the non- were allegedly committed almost a year before, not to mention the fact that
the charges leveled against her lacked particularity.
presentation gives rise to the presumption that these were
intentionally suppressed and would be adverse to PR’s claim.  The consistent rule is that if doubts exist between the evidence
o Absences were in conformity with the prior agreement of both presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice
must be tilted in favor of the latter. The employer must affirmatively
parties, as they agreed beforehand that P would not report on
show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a
Saturdays. The handwritten listing of the days when P was absent
justifiable cause. Not having satisfied its burden of proof, we conclude
or late and even the computerized print-out do not prove that her
absences were unauthorized as they could easily be manufactured.
 that the employer dismissed the petitioner without any just cause.
Hence, the termination is illegal.

Dispositive
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission, dated
November 29, 1996 and the Resolution, dated February 20, 1997 are hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the Decision of the Labor Arbiter, dated May 15,
1996 REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.