FACTS: EDI is a duly licensed recruitment agency and respondent Magsino was a supervisor until she was dismissed. One of the things she was to do was the remit the premium payments of payments were missing so she was asked to explain this and to show reason why no disciplinary actions shouldn’t be taken but respondent resigned but her resignation was not acted upon because of the investigation, later she was notified of her termination. She filed a case for illegal dismissal argued that she wasn’t afforded due process because there was no cause and no notice of termination. The LA and the NLRC ruled that the company couldn’t appeal ;because it didn’t conform to the NLRC Rules of Procedure and that the issues raised were raised for the first time on appeal. The CA upheld the decision.
ISSUE: W/N there was illegal dismissal
HELD: The SC ruled that the NLRC should have allowed the company to present its evidence as it is in the best interest, of justice that all facts come out. However, the evidence is still insufficient; to terminate respondent. In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof is on the employer but the company failed to show enough evidence proving and justifying the dismissal.
0 comments:
Post a Comment