THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 207222. June 18, 2014.]

WILSON & JACKSON AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP, INC. & JACINTO

GAN, JR. , petitioners, vs . RICHARD PRICONES , respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 18,
2014 , which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 207222 (Wilson & Jackson Automotive Repair Shop, Inc. &
Jacinto Gan, Jr. v. Richard Pricones) . — This is a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the January 30, 2013 Decision 1 and
the May 14, 2013 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 125816
entitled "Richard R. Pricones v. National Labor Relations Commission (Fourth Division),
Wilson & Jackson Automotive Repair Shop, Inc./Jacinto Gan, Jr." The dispositive portion of
the January 30, 2013 CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant petition is hereby
GRANTED . The assailed Decision dated February 29, 2012 and the Resolution
dated May 10, 2012 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Fourth
Division in NLRC LAC No. 09-002611-11 and NLRC-NCR Case No. 03-04953-11
are hereby REVERSED and SET-ASIDE . Private respondent Wilson & Jackson
Automotive Repair Shop, Inc. is hereby ORDERED to reinstate the petitioner to his
former position with full backwages from the date of dismissal until actual
reinstatement. No costs.
SO ORDERED . 3

Wilson & Jackson Automotive Repair Shop, Inc. (WJARS), owned by Jacinto Gan, Jr.
(Gan), led a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in the CA Resolution, dated May
14, 2013.
The Facts :
On March 24, 2011, respondent Richard Pricones (Pricones) led a complaint for
illegal dismissal, non-payment of rest day premium, service incentive leave, 13th month
pay, attorney's fees, and damages against petitioners Wilson & Jackson Automotive Repair
Shop, Inc. (WJARS) and its owner, Jacinto Gan, Jr. (Gan).
In his complaint, Pricones alleged that on November 29, 2000, he was hired by
WJARS as an automotive mechanic; that he resigned in 2005, but was rehired in 2006 at
the rate of P415.00 per day; that his tour of duty during the period of his employment was
from 8:00 o'clock in the morning to 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon; that on January 24, 2011,
he was not able to go to work due to an illness; that he informed WJARS through its
secretary, Ms. Thelma Larase, of his absence; that on January 26, 2011, he underwent an x-
ray examination; that he was not able to report for work until January 31, 2011; that on
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 March 15, 2011, he submitted a written explanation for his absence; that on March 19,
2011, he received a letter of termination of his employment for his alleged submission of a
falsi ed medical certi cate; that the medical certi cate was not spurious; and that he not
was working for another auto repair shop during the time of his absence from WJARS. AaITCH

For its part, WJARS alleged that Pricones had previously worked for the shop but he
tendered a resignation and signed a quitclaim on December 23, 2005. Not long thereafter,
he decided to work again at WJARS and was rehired on January 2, 2006 as a mechanic and
remained as an employee for the next ve (5) years. On February 13, 2010, he was given a
performance memo due to certain infractions (negligence of working hours, disrespect to
employer, poor performance, and absences) and perceived lack of interest in his work.
WJARS then learned of his dishonesty when it came to know that he had been
"moonlighting" in another automotive repair shop. Worse, he even persuaded some of his
co-workers to join him. According to WJARS, he feigned illness and submitted a falsi ed
medical certi cate so that he could claim Social Security System (SSS) bene ts from
WJARS. Due to these infractions, he was issued a memo asking him to explain within
twenty-four (24) hours the accusations of dishonesty against him. Pricones received the
Memo but he did not act on it and instead threatened the security guard of the shop and
his co-workers who squealed about his "sideline." Thereafter, he was sent a letter of
termination.
On July 28, 2011, the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Pricones' complaint for lack of
merit. 4 The LA ruled that considering Pricones admitted working for another company, it
was incumbent for him to show that he did so only after his tour of duty with WJARS or
when it was closed. There was credence given to the statements executed by his co-
workers to the effect that he was indeed "moonlighting."
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the LA ruling on February 29, 2012. 5 It was of the view
that no amount of his denial would change the admission of his ve (5) co-workers that he
indeed worked for another automotive repair shop. It also considered the report that he
threatened his co-workers, as attested to by the shop's security guards and Thelma
Larase. Thus, it held him guilty of the charges hurled against him, rendering his termination
justifiable.
In a petition for certiorari with the CA, Pricones contended that WJARS failed to
discharge the onus probandi that his dismissal was for a valid cause. He pointed out that
the statements made by his co-workers and the security guard were not made under oath.
He claimed that they merely succumbed to pressure to testify against him.
In the assailed decision, the CA reversed the NLRC ruling and ordered the
reinstatement of Pricones on the following grounds:
a) The burden of proof to show that the dismissal of Pricones was legal
rested on WJARS.
b) There was no substantial evidence to prove that he worked for another
repair shop during his tour of duty with WJARS. While he admitted in his written
explanation that he worked on a sideline, there was a quali cation that he only
did so after work hours.

c) The statements of his co-workers were not made under oath. Even if the
statements were considered in evidence, the allegation of moonlighting had no
leg to stand on. In the statements, there was no intimation that he did his
"sideline" during his tour of duty with WJARS. There was even no speci c
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 allegations on the date and time.

d) There was also no citation of a specific company rule that restricted him
from engaging in other sources of livelihood.

e) On the charge of dishonesty, there was no substantial evidence to prove

that he falsified the medical certificate he submitted.

With its motion for reconsideration denied, WJARS led this petition anchored on
the following arguments:
a) In totally reversing the rulings of the LA and the NLRC, the CA
disregarded clear parameters for the exercise of judicial review under Rule 65, as
there was no finding of grave abuse of discretion.

b) In the case of AGG Trucking v. Yuag , 6 the Court ruled that there must
first be a finding on whether the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion.
c) The factual ndings of the LA and the NLRC, entities having the
expertise in matters within their respective jurisdiction, are generally accorded not
only respect but even finality.

d) In reviewing the facts all together, the CA used a wrong evidentiary

standard. The law only requires substantial proof to justify dismissals. Direct
evidence is not needed to declare a termination valid.

e) The petitioner had ample grounds to terminate Pricones. His dismissal

was not baseless.

On September 26, 2013, Pricones led his Comment 7 contending that he was
illegally dismissed from the service as the charges against him were not supported by
substantial evidence. They were purely based on the allegations made by the forced
employee-witnesses which were not under oath.
WJARS led its Reply, 8 dated January 13, 2014, reiterating that the CA committed a
serious procedural fault in reviewing and reversing the consistent factual ndings without
a nding of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC and the LA. It stresses that
the ndings of the LA and the NLRC were supported by substantial evidence as there was
an admission from Pricones, buttressed by statements executed by his co-workers.
The Court's Ruling
In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer, who has to
prove that the dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause. 9 In this case, the dismissal
of Pricones from his employment as mechanic was due to "moonlighting" and dishonesty.
It was, thus, incumbent upon WJARS to prove these grounds. It is clear from the evidence
on record that WJARS miserably failed to discharge this burden. As correctly found by the
CA, thus:
This Court nds that the private respondents failed to discharge this onus
probandi. A perusal of the Notice to Explain issued by the private respondents to
petitioner Pricones would show that the charge against the latter was dishonesty
in connection with "moonlighting." Essentially, private respondents sought
petitioner Pricones' dismissal as he allegedly lied about being sick in order to
excuse himself from work with private respondent WJARS, and thus, be able to
work for another repair shop. As these were the grounds set forth by the private
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 respondents in the Notice to Explain and subsequently, in the termination letter
dated March 19, 2011, these allegations of moonlighting and dishonesty must be
supported by substantial evidence, otherwise, the dismissal is deemed illegal.
A careful examination of the records of the case leads this Court to
conclude that neither petitioner Pricones' alleged moonlighting nor the supposed
falsity of his medical certificate was sufficiently established.

First, on the issue of moonlighting, there is no substantial evidence to

prove that petitioner Pricones worked for another repair shop during his tour of
duty with private respondent WJARS. While petitioner Pricones stated in his
written explanation that he worked on a "sideline," there was a clari cation that he
only did the same after his tour of duty with private respondent WJARS or
whenever the latter's business was closed.
xxx xxx xxx

Furthermore, it may be well to note that there was no allegation as to what

particular date/s did petitioner Pricones supposedly go to his "sideline." There
was likewise no mention as to what date/s when petitioner Pricones allegedly
tagged along his co-workers with him. The Notice to Explain dated March 12,
2011 is silent on these matters. No Daily Time Record (DTR) of either petitioner
Pricones or his co-workers was presented. These are all very crucial to prove the
allegation of moonlighting since the statements of his co-workers are not
inconsistent with petitioner Pricones' explanation that he worked on his "sideline"
outside his tour of duty with private respondent WJARS or whenever the latter
was closed. HEcIDa

xxx xxx xxx

On the charge of dishonesty, there is likewise no substantial evidence to
prove that the medical certi cates/records which petitioner Pricones submitted to
justify his absences from January 24 to January 31, 2011, were falsi ed.
Accusations are not proof. Again, private respondents failed to discharge the
onus of proving the said charge. For dismissal to be valid, the evidence must be
substantial and not arbitrary and must be founded on clearly established facts. A
condemnation of dishonesty and disloyalty cannot arise from suspicions
spawned by speculative inferences." 10

As can be gleaned therefrom, the CA properly gave more credence to the medical
records of Pricones as against the statements of his co-workers. The said statements
were not made under oath, thus, putting into question their weight and probative value.
Well-entrenched is the principle that if doubt exists between the evidence presented by the
employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. 11
Accordingly, the finding of illegal dismissal must be upheld.
Contrary to WJARS' contention, the CA indeed made a nding of grave abuse of
discretion. The CA wrote:
Lastly, while this Court is mindful of the general rule that factual ndings
of the NLRC are entitled to respect, this is so only when such ndings are
supported by substantial evidence. Otherwise, they shall be struck down for
being whimsical and capricious and arrived at with grave abuse of
discretion . In ne, this Court nds that the assailed rulings of the Labor Arbiter
and public respondent NLRC are not supported by substantial evidence . 1 2 Cdpr

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 [Emphases supplied]

WHEREFORE the petition is DENIED . (Villarama, Jr. designated Acting Member in

view of the vacancy in the Third Division, per Special Order No. 1691 dated May 22, 2014)
SO ORDERED ."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Associate Justices
Normandie B. Pizarro and Manuel M. Barrios, concurring. Rollo, pp. 31-42.

2. Id. at 44-46.
3. Id. at 42.

4. Id. at 53-57.
5. Id. at 77-82.

6. G.R. No. 195033, October 12, 2011, 659 SCRA 91.

7. Dated September 25, 2013, rollo, pp. 135-156.
8. Id. at 158-162.

9. Josan, JPS, Santiago Cargo Movers v. Aduna, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 679, citing
Mobile Protective & Detective Agency v. Ompad, 497 Phil. 621 (2005).
10. Rollo, pp. 36-39.
11. Cited case of Lores Realty Enterprises, Inc. v. Pacia, G.R. No. 171189, March 9, 2011, 645
SCRA 121.
12. Rollo, pp. 41-42.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com