Ledesma v.

National Labor Relations Commission

GR No. 174585
Doctrine: In cases before administrative, and quasi-judicial bodies, substantial evidence must
be given which is relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.
Even though the employer is burdened with proving that the dismissal of the employee is indeed
legal and valid, the employee must first present substantial evidence that there was dismissal.
Failure to do so warrants that the dismissal is valid as it can be held that there is no dismissal in
the first place.

Facts:

Federico Ledesma is employed as a service/company driver of the company, Philippine Nautical

Training Inc., on probationary status under the supervision of the site administrator, Pablo de
Leon.
Ledesma filed a complaint against his supervisor for allegedly using the company resources and
property for personal use which was duly received by the Chief Accountant. Sometime
thereafter, de Leon filed a report which posits that Ledesma is a drug user. Due to de Leon’s
report, the Human Resources Manager of the company required Ledesma to explain why no
disciplinary action should be taken against him in lieu of furnishing him a notice.
Ledesma thereafter filed a complaint of illegal dismissal against the company. He claims that the
report submitted by his supervisor is retaliatory in nature and that when he reported to the
company’s main office in Espana, Manila, the notice was taken back since the drug test confirms
that he is indeed a drug user. Ledesma claims that the company gave him a chance to sign a
resignation letter in order for him to receive a separation pay to which he passed for the moment
in order for him to think about the said offer.
He undertook a drug test in St. Dominic Medical Center which states a negative result. He then
reported for work but was apparently banned from the premises.
The company, for its part, said that there was no dismissal but merely a notice and said that
Ledesma was not banned from the evidence which can be proven when he received his
remuneration from the dates he averred to have been denied to enter.
The Labor Arbiter granted in favor of Ledesma but denied reinstatement. The NLRC and CA
ruled otherwise.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is dismissal?
RULING:
Even though the employer is burdened with proving that the dismissal of the employee is indeed
legal and valid, the employee must first present substantial evidence that there was dismissal.
Failure to do so warrants that the dismissal is valid as it can be held that there is no dismissal in
the first place.
In the case of Ledesma, his statements were uncorroborated and was not substantiated by
evidence. There is no showing that there is a company directive or statement that he is dismissed
from service when he is shown to still be in the company payroll even after said notice was
given.
Ledesma claims that the notice or offer given to him was in itself an order of dismissal, while
this is not condoned, it cannot be construed to be an order of dismissal when the choice falls
upon him to continue his employment. Whether or not to resign and receive separation pay or
continue working but face disciplinary action is definitely different against dismissal.