Acebedo vs.

NLRC

Melencia Asegurado was dismissed from service because of her supposed exhaustion of allowable sick and vacation leaves per month constituting gross and habitual neglect of her duty. (Repeated defiance or breach of company policy, according to Acebedo) Asegurado filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter The Labor Arbiter, NLRC and CA ruled in favor of Asegurado

o They found that Acebedo failed to marshal the obligatory quantum of

evidence needed to substantiate a finding of legitimacy or validity in the termination of employment

o They held that Acebedos failure to adduce in evidence a copy of the contravened
company policy was fatal to their cause. Absent proof of evidence of such document embodying the flouted rule, the lower courts were unable to make a categorical finding on the issue of whether or not the Asegurados accumulated absences and/or tardiness were, indeed, in violation of petitioner companys rules and regulations. Acebedo filed Petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before SC

Issue: WON Acebedo has sufficiently shown Asegurados breach of company policy even if it did not present a copy of the contravened company policy Held: NO Petitioners have alleged time and again that the basis upon which the dismissal of private respondent was anchored was breach or violation of company policy. It was their contention that private respondents habitual tardiness and/or absences were in violation of petitioner companys rules and regulations. Ironically, though petitioners referred to their company policies, they never presented a copy of these in evidence except in their Motion for Reconsideration too late in the day. Being the basis of the charge against private respondent, it is without doubt the best evidence available to substantiate the allegations. The purpose of the rule requiring the production of the best evidence is the prevention of fraud, because if a party is in possession of such evidence and withholds it, and seeks to substitute inferior evidence in its place (or none at all save for mere allegation), the presumption naturally arises that the better evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes which its production would expose and defeat. By failing to prove the existence of the company rules in due time, i.e., non-presentation of an authenticated copy, unarguably the best evidence, casts skepticism on the factual basis of the charge of violation thereof; arguably, therefore, it cannot be said that the assailed conduct can be considered gross neglect of duty.