Professional Documents
Culture Documents
- versus -
ALVAREZ
VERGARAINDUSTRIAL
GROUP, INC. and/or EVELYN
ALVAREZ-DEWITT, And/or
GLORIETTA CORUZ
ALMAZAN,
Respondents-Appellants,
x-----------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
Respondents-Appellants, through the undersigned counsel, unto
this Honorable Commission, most respectfully aver:
TIMELINESS
SO ORDERED.”
Date Violation(s)
2016 Insubordination to Employer
Dishonesty
Commission of Swindling and/or Theft
Date Violation(s)
2016 Insubordination
2016 Falsification
Absence Without Leave/ Abandonment
Swindling and/or Theft
Violation(s)
2016 Insubordination to Employer
Dishonesty
Commission of a Crime (Swindling and/or
Theft)
DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS
32. It is a basic rule of evidence that each party must prove his
affirmative allegation.1 If he claims a right granted by law, he must
prove his claim by competent evidence, relying on the strength of his
own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his opponent.2 The
test for determining on whom the burden of proof lies is found in the
result of an inquiry as to which party would be successful if no
evidence of such matters were given.3 In an illegal dismissal case, the
onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that the dismissal of an
employee was for a valid cause.4 However, before a case for illegal
dismissal can prosper, an employer-employee relationship must first
be established.5Thus, in filing a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA)
for illegal dismissal, based on the premise that he was an employee of
respondents, it is incumbent upon petitioner to prove the employer-
employee relationship by substantial evidence.6
1 Lopez v. Bodega City (Video-Disco Kitchen of the Phils.) and/or Torres-Yap, 558 Phil. 666, 673 (2007).
2Id. at 673-674.
3 Id. at 674.
4 Id.
5 Id.
6 Id.
33. In the instant case, conflicting issues must first be resolved
before determining the issue of illegal dismissal which primarily boils
down to the issue of whether complainants-appellees RBB, CGL and
EDL substantially establish their claims that they are
regular/permanent employee of herein respondent-appellant AVIGI?
We stand in the negative.
35. Notably, when the Labor Arbiter ruled the issue in illegal
dismissal, she based her decision on the mere allegations of the
complainants-appellees that they work for the respondent-appellee.
Otherwise stated, other than the mere allegations of Complainants-Appellees,
there is no basis at all for the Labor Arbiter to conclude that Complainant-
Appellees are regular employees - the truth is, Complainants-Appellees are
personal helpers of herein individual respondent-appellant Glorieta Almazan
(“Glorieta” for brevity) and NOT of AVIGI or Evelyn Alvarez - DeWitt.
39. Time and again our Supreme Court in many cases held: “In
illegal dismissal cases, it is incumbent upon the employees to first establish
the fact of their dismissal before the burden is shifted to the employer to prove
that the dismissal was legal.” This ruling was strengthened in the case of
Ledesma, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, (G.R. No.
174585, October 19, 2007, 537 SCRA 358, 370), where our Supreme
Court held:
7
G.R. No. 168664, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 534, 544-545.
45. The trust and confidence afforded by Glorieta was however
abused by complainants through the commission of the following:
8
Javier v. Fly Ace Corporation, G.R. No. 192558, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 382, 399-400
9 Id. at 400
10
Id.
11 Id.
RELIEF
Other just and equitable reliefs under the circumstances are also
prayed for.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Copy furnished: