Saturday, August 30, 2008 Failure to adduce evidence By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
PRIVATE respondent Melencia Asegurado was the subject of a series of memoranda by petitioner Acebedo Optical reminding her of her habitual absenteeism and constant tardiness. After having been meted a number of suspensions and respondent still failed to reform, she was dismissed from the service for failure to obey basic rules and regulations of the company.
Petitioner, however, failed to adduce in evidence a copy of the company rules and regulations before the labor arbiter.
Was the dismissal justified?
Ruling: No.
Herein to our mind, petitioners have not sufficiently shown that private respondent had willfully disobeyed the company rules and regulations respecting absences and tardiness. The cause for the termination of private respondent’s employment was not simply habitual tardiness and/or absenteeism.
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 respondent’s habitual tardiness and/or absences were in violation of petitioner company’s rules and regulations.
Ironically, although 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 (Acebedo Optical and Miguel Acebedo III versus NLRC and Melencia Asegurado, G.R. No. 150171, July 17, 2007).
