National Semiconductor Distribution v.

NLRC

FACTS
NSD (HK corp in PH) employed Santos as technician with P5,501/mo during graveyard shift (10PM til 6
AM)
8 January 1993: Santos did not report for work, resumed only on 9 January BUT he made two entries in
his daily time record to make it appear that he reported on the 8th.
o Supervisor Limsiaco knew that he was not present on the 8th and found that he falsified the DTR
entry.
o Investigation was conducted and he was asked to file a explanatory memo within 48 hrs.
o His said in his memo that he was absent and the entry was only due to carelessness found
unsatisfactory so he was dismissed.
Filed a complaint for illegal dismissal + damages.
LA: legal dismissal BUT no due process so indemnify him 1k + pay unpaid night differentials of
19,801.47.
NLRC: affirmed, conclusions were sufficiently supported by evidence

ISSUES + RULING
Who has burden to prove night differential claims? NSD
Night differentials issue was neither raised nor proven before LA + he was already paid night diff + 1k is
totally unjustified as they afforded him due process (memo)
SC: it was raised as an issue and was never abandoned BUT he failed to substantiate his claim.
o Failure to substantiate does not prejudice his claim, though it is a negative allegation, which
need not be supported by evidence unless it is an essential part of his cause of action.
His main cause of action was illegal dismissal; night diff is incidental.
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 (the one who pleads
payment NSD)
Santos also could not prove it because documents are under control of NSD)
o He had been employed for 5 years, NSD never denied night shift.

Was there due process? YES

The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side.
o In this case, he was notified of grounds + asked to submit memo + he was present during
investigation + notified of managements decision.
That the investigations conducted by petitioner may not be considered formal or recorded hearings or
investigations is immaterial.
o A formal or trial type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due process, the
requirements of which are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable
opportunity to explain their side of the controversy.
o It is deemed sufficient for the employer to follow the natural sequence of notice, hearing and
judgment.