ARGUMENTS

TITLE: TOTALITY DOCTRINE

Termination of employment at the initiative of the employer is

dismissal. Illegal dismissal is of two (2) forms: (1.) actual; and (2.)
constructive. The complainant charges the respondents of actual illegal
dismissal. In this form, the termination of employment is effected through
the overt or positive act of the employer without just or authorized cause
provided by law, employment contract or collective bargaining agreement,
company policies, rules, regulations or company code of Conduct/Discipline
(the substantive aspect of due process in employment termination) and
without due process which consist of notice and hearing (the procedural
aspect).

Although in termination cases, the general rule is that the employer

bears the burden to prove the legality of the dismissal, the Supreme Court
however, in its ruling in Philippines Rural Reconstruction Movement
(PRRM) vs. Pulgar (623 SCRA 244) obliges the worker to first prove his
charge; to quote:

Before the employer must bear the burden of proving

that the dismissal was legal, the employee must first
establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal.

Pertinently, the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in labor

cases is substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion even if
other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise (Bankard,
Inc. vs. NLRC, 692 SCRA 459).

The complainant failed to discharge his burden. His contention that his
dismissal was without just or authorized cause and due process is conclusively
belied by the numerous documentary evidence adduced by the respondents proving
beyond doubt the various and repeated violations committed by the complainant.
 Examination of the documentary evidence extant in the records readily
discloses the fact that the complainant has proven himself as an undesirable
employee.

For every violation he committed, he was directed to explain and he

submitted his handwritten explanations, wherein he admitted his violation; beg for
understanding/forgiveness; then promised to be more diligent, to love his job and
to abide by the company rules and regulations.

The records clearly and decisively prove that the complainant has been the
recipient of notices to explain and warnings for his repeated breaches of company
rules and regulations starting December 2012 and had then promised to correct and
refrain from past mistakes. Yet, the case records is also replete with documentary
proofs that the complainant did not reform, instead he committed more serious
offenses/violations and kept on begging for forgiveness.

Under this rule, the past offenses of the complainant are relevant in the
consideration of the gravity of his last transgression (Meralco vs. NLRC, 263
SCRA 531). The offenses committed by a worker is not taken singly and separately
but in their totality, as fitness for continued employment cannot be based on
compartmentalization of various violations, separate and distinct from each other
(Valino vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146621, July 31, 2004).

Further, it is herein emphasized that violation of company rules and

regulations fall under analogous causes, which is one of the just causes for
termination of employment under Article 282 (e) of the Labor Code. The
underlying element of any of the analogous causes must be that the same arose
from the employees fault, culpability and wrongful act (Nadura vs. Benguet
Consolidated, 5 SCRA 879).