FACTS:

Melencia Asegurado, the private respondent, was employed by Acebedo Optical Corporation and Miguel Acebedo III, the petitioners, as a packaging clerk. She received several memoranda regarding her tardiness and was suspended multiple times. On December 8, 1996, she was issued a Notice of Termination due to chronic absenteeism and abusive tardiness. The private respondent received the notice on January 21, 1997, and filed a case for illegal dismissal with the NLRC the following day.

In a decision dated May 22, 1998, the Labor Arbiter declared the private respondent's dismissal as illegal, ordering her reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits. The petitioners' appeal was dismissed by the NLRC, and their motion for reconsideration was denied. They then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was denied in a decision on May 16, 2001.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in declaring the respondent to have been illegally dismissed despite evidence showing excessive tardiness and absenteeism.

2. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ordering respondent's reinstatement to her former position or to reinstate her with loss of seniority rights and full backwages.

3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the evidence on record was insufficient to establish that the company policies were contravened by the private respondent.

4. Whether the dismissal of the private respondent was for a just or authorized cause and attended with due process.

5. Whether the absences and tardiness of the employee can be categorized as gross neglect of duty

6. Whether the company rules and regulations were violated by the employee

7. Whether or not the employer gave the employee a fair opportunity to be heard and defend himself before his dismissal.

8. Whether or not the employee's termination without prior notice and hearing is valid.

RULING:

1. The Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error in declaring the respondent to have been illegally dismissed. The petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the validity of the termination of the respondent's employment. They failed to present a copy of the company policy that was allegedly violated by the respondent and the Daily Time Records for the period in question. Without these pieces of evidence, it cannot be determined if the respondent's actions were in violation of the company's rules and regulations.

2. The Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error in ordering the respondent's reinstatement. Even if it is assumed that the respondent incurred tardiness and absences, the Court of Appeals found that she had been duly penalized for these infractions. Therefore, dismissal was too severe a penalty and was unwarranted. The respondent is entitled to reinstatement to her former position or reinstatement with loss of seniority rights and full backwages.

3. The Court held that the determination of whether the private respondent disobeyed the company policy is a factual inquiry within the jurisdiction of the NLRC. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and only errors of law are generally reviewed in petitions for review on certiorari. The findings of fact and conclusions of the NLRC are accorded great weight and respect and are deemed binding on the Supreme Court as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. In this case, the Court found no basis to deviate from the doctrine without any clear showing that the findings of fact were unsubstantiated.

4. The Court held that the burden of proof lies with the employer to establish that the dismissal of the employee was for a just cause. In this case, the labor arbiter and the NLRC concluded that the private respondent was not afforded due process and that the evidence on record was insufficient to justify her dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed this finding. The Court held that the dismissal was unjustified and illegal.

5. The absences and tardiness of the employee cannot be categorized as gross neglect of duty. Gross negligence implies a want or absence of care or diligence. In this case, there was no evidence to show that the employee had shown thoughtless disregard of consequences without making any effort to avoid them. The penalty of dismissal is too harsh considering the employee's length of service and the absence of complaints regarding the quality of her work. Therefore, her termination from employment was unjustified.

6. The company failed to prove the existence of its rules and regulations relating to absences and tardiness. Hence, the charge of violation of company policy was not substantiated by substantial evidence.

7. The Court ruled in favor of the employee. It held that the employer did not give the employee a fair opportunity to be heard and defend himself before his dismissal. It emphasized that every opportunity and assistance must be accorded to the employee by the management to enable him to prepare adequately for his defense, including legal representation. Since no chance whatsoever was given to the employee in this case, her termination without prior notice and hearing was declared invalid.

PRINCIPLES:

• The burden of proof lies on the employer to establish the validity of the dismissal.

• Evidence of violation of company policy and rules and regulations must be presented to substantiate the termination of employment.

• Dismissal must be proportional to the offense committed and should not be too severe a penalty.

• The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and only errors of law are generally reviewed in petitions for review on certiorari.

• The findings of fact and conclusions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) are accorded great weight and respect and are deemed binding on the Supreme Court as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.

• The burden of proof lies with the employer to establish that the dismissal of the employee was for a just cause.

• Dismissal of an employee should be for a just or authorized cause and should be attended with due process.

• Gross negligence requires both want or absence of care or diligence and an entire absence of care.

• The best evidence rule requires the production of the best evidence, and failure to do so gives rise to skepticism on the factual basis of the charge.

• Allegations without tangible proof are mere allegations and not evidence.

• In case of doubt between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, doubts must be resolved in favor of the employee.

• Due process requires an employer to furnish the employee with two written notices before termination, including the opportunity to be heard.

• Employees must be given the opportunity to be heard and defend themselves in disciplinary proceedings.

• The employer must afford the employee every opportunity and assistance, including legal representation, to prepare adequately for his defense.

• Termination without prior notice and hearing is invalid and constitutes a violation of the employee's right to due process.