FEDERICO LEDESMA, JR. v.
NLRC proved that he was not guilty of the drug use charge against him, he decided to continue to work
G.R. No. 174585, October 19, 2007
Ponente: Chico-Nazario
Digest Author: Camille Barredo
PETITIONER: Federico M. Ledesma, Jr.
RESPONDENTS: National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC-Second Division) Hons. Raul T.
Aquino, Victoriano R. Calaycay and Angelita A. Gacutan are the Commissioners, Philippine Nautical
Training Inc., Atty. Hernani Fabia, Ricky Ty, Pablo Manolo, C. De Leon and Treena Cueva
DOCTRINE: Before the burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove the validity of the employee's
dismissal, the employee must first sufficiently establish that he was indeed dismissed from
employment.
FACTS:
 Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of ROC
 Petitioner Federico Ledesma (Ledesma) was employed as a bus/service driver by private respondent
Philippine Nautical Training Inc., (PNTI) on probationary basis.
 He was required to report at PNTI’s training site in Dasmariñas, Cavite under the direct supervision of
its site administrator, private respondent Pablo Manolo de Leon (de Leon).  o directed PNTI to pay Ledesma backwages
 Ledesma filed a complaint against de Leon for allegedly abusing his authority as site administrator by
using PNTI’s vehicles and other facilities for personal ends.
 Ledesma also accused de Leon of immoral conduct allegedly carried out within PNTI’s premises.
 In turn, de Leon filed a written report against Ledesma addressed to PNTI’s Vice President for
Administration, Ricky Ty (Ty), citing his suspected drug use.
 In view of de Leon's report, PNTI’s Human Resource Manager, Treena Cueva (Cueva) served a copy
of a Notice to Ledesma requiring him to explain within 24 hours why no disciplinary action should be
imposed on him for allegedly violating Section 14, Article IV of PNTI’s Code of Conduct. 
 Ledesma filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PNTI before the Labor Arbiter.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:
 He was falsely accused of being a drug user by de Leon as retaliation for the complaint he filed
against de Leon.
 Instead of Ty verifying the veracity of de Leon's report, he readily believed de Leon’s allegations
and together with Cueva, verbally dismissed Ledesma from service.
 He was asked to report at PNTI’s main office in España, Manila where he was served by Cueva a
copy of the Notice to Explain together with the copy of de Leon's report citing his suspected drug
use.
 After he was made to receive the copies of the said notice and report, Cueva went inside the office
of Ty. After a while, Cueva came out of the office with Ty and took back the earlier Notice to
Explain given to him and flatly declared that there was no more need for him to explain since his
drug test result revealed that he was positive for drugs.
 When he asked for a copy of the said drug test result, Cueva told him that it was with the
company's president, but she would also later claim that the drug test result was already with the
proper authorities at Camp Crame.  Counter-argument: Ledesma admitted in his Supplemental Affidavit that he was able to return to the
 Ledesma was then asked by Cueva to sign a resignation letter and also remarked that whether or
not Ledesma would resign willingly, he was no longer considered an employee of PNTI. All these
events transpired in the presence of Ty, who even convinced him to just voluntarily resign with the
assurance that he would still be given separation pay.
 Ledesma did not yet sign the resignation letter replying that he needed time to think over the offers.
 When he went back to PNTI’s training site in Dasmariñas, Cavite to get his bicycle, he was no
longer allowed by the guard to enter the premises.  Ledesma was not dismissed but was only being given the option to either resign and receive his
 The following day, Ledesma immediately went to St. Dominic Medical Center for a drug test and
he was found negative for any drug substance.
 With his drug result on hand, he went back to PNTI’s main office in Manila to talk to Ty and
Cueva and to show to them his drug test result. Ledesma then told them that since his drug test
for PNTI.
 Ledesma reported for work, but he was no longer allowed to enter the training site for he was
allegedly banned therefrom according to the guard on duty.
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE:
 Ledema was never dismissed from employment but merely served a Notice to Explain why no
disciplinary action should be filed against him in view of his superior's report that he was suspected
of using illegal drugs.
 Instead of filing an answer to the said notice, however, Ledesma prematurely lodged a complaint
for illegal dismissal against PNTI before the Labor Arbiter. 
 Ledesma was not banned from entering the premises. Rather, it was Ledesma who failed or refused
to report to work after he was made to explain his alleged drug use.
 Ledesma was even able to claim at the training site his salary and 13th month pay.
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
 Labor Arbiter – rendered a Decision in favor of petitioner Ledesma:
o declared illegal Ledesma’s separation from employment
o did not order Ledesma’s reinstatement for the same was no longer practical
 NLRC – reversed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision
o dismissed Ledesma’s complaint for illegal dismissal due to failure to establish the fact of
dismissal (his claim that he was banned from entering the training site was rendered
impossible by the fact that he was able to subsequently claim his salary and 13th month
pay)
o granted Ledesma’s claim for reinstatement
o ordered PNTI to reinstate Ledesma to his former position without loss of seniority rights
but without backwages
 CA – affirmed the Decision and Resolution of NLRC
o dismissed Ledesma’s Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of ROC
ISSUE: Whether Ledesma was illegally dismissed from employment. – NO.
RULING + RATIO:
It is a settled evidentiary rule that before the burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove the validity
of the employee's dismissal, the employee must first sufficiently establish that he was indeed dismissed
from employment.
In this case, Ledesma failed to establish the fact of his dismissal. His positive allegation that he was
dismissed from service was negated by substantial evidence to the contrary. Moreover, his claim of
illegal dismissal is supported by no other than his own bare, uncorroborated and, thus, self-serving
allegations, which are also incoherent, inconsistent and contradictory.
Petitioner’s Allegation: He was banned by PNTI from entering the workplace.
said site. First, to claim his salary and second, to receive his 13th month pay.
Petitioner’s Allegation: He was illegally dismissed.
Counter-argument: Ledesma himself narrated that when his presence was requested at PNTI’s main
office where he was served with the Notice to Explain his superior's report on his suspected drug use,
Ty offered him separation pay if he will just voluntarily resign from employment. In that instance,
separation pay or not to resign but face the possible disciplinary charges against him. The final
decision, therefore, whether to voluntarily resign or to continue working still, ultimately rests with
Ledesma himself. In fact, by his own admission, Ledesma even requested from Ty more time to think
over the offer. Furthermore, PNTI was able to present a payroll bearing Ledesma’s name proving that
he remained as PNTI’s employee up to December 2000.
Petitioner’s Allegation: The payroll was merely fabricated for the purpose of supporting PNTI’s case
before the NLRC.
Counter-argument: Entries in the payroll, being entries in the course of business, enjoy the
presumption of regularity under Rule 130, Section 43 of the Rules of Court. It is therefore incumbent
upon Ledesma to adduce clear and convincing evidence in support of his claim of fabrication and to
overcome such presumption of regularity. 

While the Court is not unmindful of the rule that in cases of illegal dismissal, the employer bears the
burden of proof to prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause, in the case at bar,
however, the facts and the evidence did not establish a prima facie case that Ledesma was dismissed
from employment.  Before PNTI must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, Ledesma
must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from service. Logically, if there is
no dismissal, then there can be no question as to the legality or illegality thereof.

Petition is denied.