Mehitabel, Inc. vs. Alcuizar

MEHITABEL FURNITURE, INC. vs.
ALCUIZAR
G.R. Nos. 228701-02, December 13, 2017
Petitioner Mehitabel, Inc. is a duly registered corporation engaged in

manufacturing high-end furniture for export. On August 31, 2010, the
company hired respondent Jufhel L. Alcuizar as its Purchasing Manager.
Respondent was able to earn a satisfactory rating during his first few
months in the company, but beginning March 2011, his immediate
supervisor, Rossana J. Arcenas (Arcenas), started receiving complaints on
his work ethics. Petitioner averred that respondent's dismal work
performance resulted in delays in the production and delivery of the
company's goods.
To address these issues, Arcenas talked to respondent and counselled him

to improve. As months passed, however, the complaints against
respondent's performance have exacerbated to the point that even the top
level officers of the company have expressed their dissatisfaction over his
ineptitude.
Sensing no improvement from the respondent and the rising complaints,

Arcenas decided to sit down and talk with respondent anew sometime in
early August 2011 to encourage the latter to shape up. She advised
respondent that should he fail to heed her advice, she may be forced to
initiate disciplinary proceedings against him for gross inefficiency.
Respondent left the premises of petitioner's company on August 10, 2011
and gave word that he was quitting his job.
Arcenas wrote him a letter that his act of leaving the office without asking
permission from said supervisor is a violation of the provision on
abandonment of the company’s code of conduct. He was directed to report
back to work immediately upon receipt of the letter and submit a written
explanation why he should not be accordingly disciplined. Instead of
complying with the directive, respondent filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal asking for reinstatement and backwages and other money claims.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent was illegally dismissed from his employment
RULING: NO.
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. The burden of proof is on the
one who declares, not on one who denies. A party alleging a critical fact
must support his allegation with substantial evidence, for any decision
based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand without offending due
process. And in illegal termination cases, jurisprudence had underscored
that the fact of dismissal must be established by positive and overt acts of
an employer indicating the intention to dismiss before the burden is shifted
to the employer that the dismissal was legal.
In the extant case, the records are bereft of any evidence that would
corroborate respondent's claim that he was actually dismissed from
employment. His asseveration that Arcenas instructed him to turnover his
functions to Enriquez remains to be a naked claim. Apart from his bare
self-serving allegation, nothing in the records even hints of him being
severed from employment by petitioner.
The publication of the purported vacancy for Purchasing Manager does not
bolster respondent's claim of dismissal as petitioner has sufficiently proven
its assertion that said publications were made through sheer inadvertence,
and that the vacancy is actually for the position of Purchasing Officer,
rather than Purchasing Manager.
Grave as the mistake in the designation of the position published might

have been, it remains that Alcuizar was informed of the error committed,
and that it was made clear to him that he was never terminated from
service at that time in spite of his poor performance. With these
considerations, the Court cannot readily treat the publications, by
themselves, as sufficient substantial proof of the fact of dismissal.
Respondent's non-compliance with the directive in the Return to Work to

Our mind, signifies his intention to sever the employment relation with
petitioner, and gives credence to the latter's claim that it was respondent
who abandoned his job. Moreover, such omission substantiates the
testimonies of Cañete and Molina who positively attested to the fact of
respondent's desertion.

Mehitabel, Inc. vs. Alcuizar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mehitabel, Inc. vs. Alcuizar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mehitabel, Inc. vs. Alcuizar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MEHITABEL FURNITURE, INC. vs.

Petitioner Mehitabel, Inc. is a duly registered corporation engaged in

To address these issues, Arcenas talked to respondent and counselled him

Sensing no improvement from the respondent and the rising complaints,

Grave as the mistake in the designation of the position published might

Respondent's non-compliance with the directive in the Return to Work to

You might also like