Burden of Proof in Constructive Dismissal Case where the Employee Resigned

In the case of Italkara 18, Inc. vs. Gerasmio (G.R. No. 221411, September 28, 2020), the Supreme Court (SC) held that the fact of dismissal must first be proven by the employee, especially considering the existence of a resignation letter signed by him.

Indeed, in illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof is on the employer in proving the validity of dismissal. However, the fact of dismissal, if disputed, must be duly proven by the complainant.

The SC cited the holding in Machica vs. Roosevelt Services Center, Inc.:

“The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; thus, petitioners were burdened to prove their allegation that respondents dismissed them from their employment. It must be stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive and convincing. The rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no application here because the respondents deny having dismissed the petitioners.”

Further, the SC held that there can be no question as to the legality or illegality of a dismissal if the employee has not discharged his burden to prove the fact of dismissal by substantial evidence, to wit:

“It is true that in constructive dismissal cases, the employer is charged with the burden of proving that

its conduct and action or the transfer of an employee are for valid and legitimate grounds such as genuine business necessity. However, it is likewise true that in constructive dismissal cases, the employee has the burden to prove first the fact of dismissal by substantial evidence. Only then when the dismissal is established that the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the dismissal was for just and/or authorized cause. The logic is simple — if there is no dismissal, there can be no question as to its legality or illegality.”

Applying the abovementioned principles in the present case, the employee clearly has the burden of proving that he was dismissed by the Company, in light of the Company’s allegation that he resigned voluntarily and was not dismissed.

Hence, The employee must first prove that he was actually dismissed by the Company before the legality of such dismissal can even be raised as an issue.

However, even a cursory perusal of the evidence on record would show that the employee failed to prove the fact of dismissal. He relied primarily on his allegations that he was misled by the Company into resigning and that he was actually retrenched. These uncorroborated and self-serving allegations, especially considering the existence of a resignation letter and a quitclaim (both bearing The employee’s signature), fall short of the evidence required under the law to discharge The employee’s burden to prove that he was dismissed by the Company.

The SC illustrates the point citing Gemina, Jr. vs. Bankwise, Inc., where the employee had indeed failed to state circumstances substantiating his claim of constructive dismissal as the employee therein had not claimed to have suffered a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or other benefits. Instead, the said employee only claimed to have been subjected to several acts of harassment by several officers of the employer-company, including being asked to take a forced leave of absence, demanding back the employee’s service vehicle, and delaying the release of employee’s salaries and allowances in order to compel him to quit employment.

Citing Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) v. Pulgar, the SC ruled, that:

“It is a well-settled rule, however, that before the employer must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from service. Bare allegations of constructive dismissal, when uncorroborated by the evidence on record, cannot be given credence.”

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:

Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:

Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing

Procedural Due Process for Other Types of Employment

Notice to Explain: Contents and Requirements