Scribd
Upload
75 views2 pages

Dionarto Q. Noblejas v. Italian Maritime Academy Philippines Inc.

Dionarto Q. Noblejas filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his employer Italian Maritime Academy Philippines Inc. and others. Noblejas claimed he was dismissed after having an altercation with the Managing Director. However, the court found that Noblejas did not provide sufficient evidence that he was actually dismissed. The employer refusing demands from an employee does not constitute an overt act of dismissal. As Noblejas did not establish through clear evidence that he was dismissed, his complaint for illegal dismissal was denied.

Uploaded by

rafael.louise.roca2244
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
75 views2 pages

Dionarto Q. Noblejas v. Italian Maritime Academy Philippines Inc.

Dionarto Q. Noblejas filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his employer Italian Maritime Academy Philippines Inc. and others. Noblejas claimed he was dismissed after having an altercation with the Managing Director. However, the court found that Noblejas did not provide sufficient evidence that he was actually dismissed. The employer refusing demands from an employee does not constitute an overt act of dismissal. As Noblejas did not establish through clear evidence that he was dismissed, his complaint for illegal dismissal was denied.

Uploaded by

rafael.louise.roca2244
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Dionarto Q. Noblejas v. Italian Maritime Academy Philippines Inc.

G.R. No. 207888 June 9, 2014

Facts:

Petitioner Dionarto Q. Noblejas filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Italian
Maritime Academy Phils., Inc. (IMAPI), Capt. Nicolo S. Terrei, Raceli S. Ferrez, and Ma. Teresa
R. Mendoza.

IMAPI was a training center for seamen and an assessment center for determination of
the qualifications and competency of seamen and officers for possible promotion. Capt. Terrei
was the Managing Director of IMAPI while Ferrez was his secretary. Mendoza was the
company’s Administrative Manager.

Record shows that Procerfina SA. Terrei, IMAPI President, wrote a letter to Noblejas
informing him that he had been appointed as training instructor/assessor of the company on a
contractual basis for a period of three months effective May 20,2009. After the expiration of the
3-month period, IMAPI hired Noblejas anew as training instructor/assessor with the same salary
rate, but no written contract was drawn for his rehiring.

Noblejas wrote Capt. Terrei a letter, dated March 9, 2010, requesting that a new contract
be executed to reflect the provisions that they had allegedly agreed upon during their
conversation on May 19, 2009. Noblejas averred that the company did not act on his letter-
request, so he sought an audience with Capt. Terrei on March 16, 2010. During the meeting, an
altercation between them ensued. He claimed that after that incident, Capt. Terrei instructed
Ferrez to dismiss him from employment.

In their position paper, respondents submitted that they could not be adjudged guilty of
illegal dismissal because there was no positive and overt act of dismissing Noblejas from
employment.

Respondents theorized that the complaint was filed on the mistaken impression by
Noblejas that the failure to meet his demands, enumerated in his March 9, 2010 letter, was
tantamount to his termination from employment.

Issue:

Is Noblejas illegally dismissed from his employment?

Ruling:

No. Fair evidentiary rule dictates that before employers are burdened to prove that they
did not commit illegal dismissal, it is incumbent upon the employee to first establish by
substantial evidence the fact of his or her dismissal. The Court is not unmindful of the rule in
labor cases that the employer has the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or
authorized cause. It is likewise incumbent upon the employees, however, that they should first
establish by competent evidence the fact of their dismissal from employment. It is an age-old
rule that the one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and the proof should be clear,
positive and convincing. Mere allegation is not evidence.

Respondents’ refusal to grant complainant’s demands does not constitute an overt act of
dismissal. On the contrary, it is rather the apparent disinterest of complainant to continue his
employment with respondent company that may be considered a covert act that severed his
employment when the latter did not grant the litany of his demands.

Let it be underscored that the fact of dismissal must be established by positive and overt
acts of an employer indicating the intention to dismiss. Indeed, a party alleging a critical fact
must support his allegation with substantial evidence, for any decision based on
unsubstantiated al legation cannot stand without offending due process. Here, there is no
sufficient proof showing that Noblejas was actually laid off from work. In any event, his filing of a
complaint for illegal dismissal, irrespective of whether reinstatement or separation pay was
prayed for, could not by itself be the sole consideration in determining whether he has been
illegally dismissed.

You might also like