Student ID: 2021-0525

Student Name: Venus M. Tamondong

Case Assigned: G. R. No. 99047 April 16, 2001
OMAR O. SEVILLA, petitioner,
Please include on the case assigned:
vs.
1) Title of the case I.T. (INTERNATIONAL) CORP./SAMIR MADDAH &
2) Date TRAVELLERS INSURANCE AND SURETY
3) Ponente CORPORATION,DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (Second
Division), respondents.

Topic related to Labor Law 1
De Leon, Jr., J.
"Article 277(b) of the Labor Code puts the
burden of proving that the dismissal of an
employee was for a valid or authorized cause
on the employer. It should be noted that the
said provision of law does not distinguish
whether the employer admits or does not
admit the dismissal

Topic Query: Who has the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases?
Facts:
Omar Sevillana was contracted to work as a driver in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia for a period of two
years, with a monthly salary of US$370.00. However, when he arrived at his place of
employment, he was only paid $100.00 a month for 12 months before being repatriated. He
then filed a complaint of illegal dismissal before the POEA. against I.T. International. In its reply,
the recruitment company contended that he was dismissed for health reasons; that due to
Sevillana’s recurring blood pressure spikes, headaches and dizziness, the employer was forced
to have him repatriated. I.T. claimed that after the petitioner had received all the benefits
accorded to an employee consisting of full salaries and separation pay, the petitioner refused to
be repatriated and instead decided to run away. Having found that it failed to substantiate its
claim, the POEA rendered judgment holding I.T. and the employer solidarily liable, whereas the
NLRC, on appeal by I.T., reversed the judgment, holding that the burden of proving that the
dismissal was for due cause attaches to the employer only in case the same has admitted that
there has actually been dismissal, which is not the case here, because according to I.T.’s
account, Sevillana ran away before he can be repatriated.
Issue:
Whether or not NLRC’s contention is correct with regards to the employers’ burden of proving
the legality of the dismissal.

Ruling:
No. The contention of NLRC is erroneous, because the Labor Code (Article277(b)), in line with
prevailing jurisprudence, has clearly placed the burden of proving the validity of the cause of
the dismissal upon the employer. It is a well-known maxim in statutory construction that where
the law does not distinguish, the court should not distinguish. Furthermore, when the
conflicting interest of labor and capital are weighed on the scales of social justice, the heavier
influence of the latter must be counterbalanced by the sympathy and compassion the law must
accord the underprivileged worker.
Time and again the Court have ruled that where there is no showing of a clear, valid and legal
cause for termination of employment, the law considers the case a matter of illegal dismissal.
The burden is on the employer to prove that the termination of employment was for a valid and
legal cause. For an employee's dismissal to be valid, (a) the dismissal must be for a valid cause
and (b) the employee must be afforded due process.
Since the burden of proving the validity of the dismissal of the employee rests on the employer,
the latter should likewise bear the burden of showing that the requisites for a valid dismissal
due to a disease have been complied with. In the absence of the required certification by a
competent public health authority, this Court has ruled against the validity of the employee's
dismissal.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Resolution dated March 26, 1991 of public respondent National
Labor Relations Commission (Second Division) is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE; and the
Decision dated December 29, 1989 of the POEA Adjudication Office is hereby REINSTATED.