FEDERICO LEDESMA, JR. v.
NLRC convinced him to just voluntarily resign with the assurance that he would still be
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).
 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.
 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
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.
 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 proved that he was not guilty of the drug use charge
against him, he decided to continue to work 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
o directed PNTI to pay Ledesma backwages
 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.

Counter-argument: Ledesma admitted in his Supplemental Affidavit that he was able
to return to the 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, Ledesma was not dismissed but
was only being given the option to either resign and receive his 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.