UP Law F2021 015 Jose Jr. v Michaelmar Phils. Inc.

Evidence Rule 130, Sec. 43 2009 Carpio

SUMMARY

Bernardo Jose, Jr. was found positive for marijuana during a random drug testing conducted on employees
of Michaelmar Phils., Inc (MPI) onboard MT Limar which constituted a violation of his employment contract
with MPI. The drug test was unsigned. Jose was repatriated and dismissed. He contested the dismissal at
NLRC. The LA dismissed the complaint; NLRC reversed the LA, averring that the veracity of the drug test is
questionable since it was unsigned. The CA reversed NLRC and reinstated the LA’s decision, saying the
unsigned drug test was an exception to the rule of admissibility as evidence of unsigned documents. SC
sustained CA, saying that it was an exception under Rule 130 Sec. 43 called entries in the course of business.
But respondents were made to pay P30,000 nominal damages for violating the due process requirement of
serving notice of dismissal.

FACTS

 July 2, 2002 – an undertaking was entered into between the petitioner Bernardo Jose, Jr and
respondent Michaelmar Philippines, Inc (MPI), the Philippine agent of Michaelmar Shipping Services,
Inc. (MSSI);
 He was an oiler for M/T Limar;
 Among others it provided the prohibition on the possession and/or use of alcoholic beverages,
banned substances, and unprescribed drugs. A random drug testing shall be used to enforce the said
provision;
 That dismissal shall be meted on any employee if found to have positive trace of alcohol or any of the
banned substances in any random testing sample;
 Oct. 8 – a random drug test was conducted and Jose was found to be positive for marijuana;
 He was informed of the result, and was permitted to continue working until Nov. 28. He had a 96%
satisfactory rating, and was described as hardworking, trustworthy and reliable;
 Dec. 29 – upon reaching a new port, MPI asked Jose to be repatriated;
 Upon arrival in the Philippines, Jose requested that he be subjected to another drug test but this was
denied by MPI. Jose, on his own, took a drug test at Manila Doctors which yielded a negative result;
 Jose filed for illegal dismissal against MPI and MSSI;
 Larbor Arbiter – dismissed the complaint for lack of merit;
 NLRC – reversed the Labor Arbiter and found that Jose was illegally dismissed: “The test result does
not contain any signature, much less the signature of any of the doctors whose name were printed
therein”;
 NLRC argued that the “veracity of this purported drug test result is questionable, hence, it cannot be
deemed as substantial proof that Complainant (Jose) violated his employer's "no alcohol, no drug"
policy.”;
 An MR by MPI and MSSI was denied. They appealed to the CA;
 CA – reversed the NLRC decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision;
 CA says that “Under legal rules of evidence, not all unsigned documents or papers fail the test of
admissibility.” It says that there are exceptions to the hearsay rule “which need not be invariably
signed by the author if it is clear that it issues from him because of necessity and under circumstances
that safeguard the trustworthiness of the paper.”
 Evidence that are called entries in the course of business1 is one of the said exception. The drug test
result constitutes entries made in the ordinary or regular course of duty of a responsible officer of
the vessel and therefore is an exception;
 An MR by Jose was denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

1
transactions made by persons in the regular course of their duty or business.
 RATIO

W/N the unsigned drug test could be admitted as evidence

The SC favored the CA justification on the admissibility of the unsigned drug test, it being an exception
under Rule 130 Sec. 432. The Court, further, cited Canque v. Court of Appeals which laid down the he
requisites for admission in evidence of entries in the course of business: (1) the person who made the entry
is dead, outside the country, or unable to testify; (2) the entries were made at or near the time of the
transactions to which they refer; (3) the person who made the entry was in a position to know the facts
stated in the entries; (4) the entries were made in a professional capacity or in the performance of a duty;
and (5) the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.

Here, all the requisites are present: (1) Dr. Heath is outside the country; (2) the entries were made near the
time the random drug test was conducted; (3) Dr. Heath was in a position to know the facts made in the
entries; (4) Dr. Heath made the entries in his professional capacity and in the performance of his duty; and
(5) the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. The fact that the drug test
result is unsigned does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Jose, Jr. was not found positive for
marijuana. In KARASIA, Inc. v. Corona, the Court admitted in evidence unsigned payrolls3.

Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on the Court. Absent grave abuse of discretion, the
Court will not disturb the Court of Appeals' factual findings.

W/N there was just cause for termination of Jose

Article 282 (a) of the Labor Code states that the employer may terminate an employment for serious
misconduct. Drug use in the premises of the employer constitutes serious misconduct. Citing Bughaw, Jr. v.
Treasure Island industrial Corporation: The charge of drug use inside the company's premises and during
working hours against petitioner constitutes serious misconduct, which working hours against petitioner
constitutes serious misconduct, which is one of the just causes for termination is one of the just causes for
termination.

But the Court found that Jose was not afforded due process: he was not given a notice of his dismissal.
However, the Court said that the propriety of his dismissal is not affected by the lack of written notice, and
which only gives rise to the payment of nominal damages.

FALLO

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The 11 May 2005 Decision and 5 August 2005 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 83272 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that OSG Ship
Management Manila, Inc. is ordered to pay Bernardo B. Jose, Jr. P30,000 in nominal damages.

SO ORDERED.

2
SEC. 43. Entries in the course of business — Entries made at, or near the time of the transactions to which they refer, by a person
deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such
person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or
duty.
3
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 the respondents to adduce clear and convincing evidence in support of their claim.
Unfortunately, respondents' naked assertions without proof in corroboration will not suffice to overcome the disputable presumption.