SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226121. November 29, 2017.]
ADMIRAL TRANSPORT, INC., petitioner,vs. DONALD GENSAYA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 November 2017which reads as follows: ATICcS
"G.R. No. 226121 (Admiral Transport, Inc. v. Donald Gensaya)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the February 29, 2016 Decision 1 and July 25, 2016 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 133203 for failure of petitioner Admiral Transport, Inc. (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in annulling and setting aside the September 12, 2013 3 and October 21, 2013 4 Resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirming the dismissal of the illegal dismissal complaint filed by respondent Donald Gensaya (respondent).
The burden of proving that the termination of an employee was for a just or authorized cause lies with the employer. If the employer fails to meet this burden, the conclusion would be that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal. 5 In relation thereto, the nature of work of a bus conductor involves inherent or normal occupational risks of incurring money shortages and uncollected fares. A conductor's job is to collect exact fares from the passengers and to remit his collections to the company. Evidence must, therefore, be substantial and not based on mere surmises or conjectures, for to allow an employer to terminate the employment of a worker based on mere allegations places the latter in an uncertain situation and at the sole mercy of the employer. An accusation that is not substantiated will not ripen into a holding that there is just cause for dismissal. 6 In this case, the CA correctly ruled that the evidence proffered by petitioner was uncorroborated, self-serving, unsubstantial, and therefore, did not suffice to prove that there was just cause to terminate respondent's employment on the grounds specified. As such, respondent's dismissal was illegal and he is, therefore, entitled to reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority rights, backwages from the date of his dismissal on October 5, 2012 until his actual reinstatement, 13th month pay and service incentive leave from February 1, 2012 pursuant to Department Order No. 118-12 7 of the Department of Labor and Employment and attorney's fees of 10% 8 of the total monetary award due him.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 79-91. Penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles concurring.
2.Id. at 93-94.
3.Id. at 47-62. Penned by Commissioner Erlinda T. Agus with Commissioners Raul T. Aquino and Teresita D. Castillon-Lora concurring.
4.Id. at p. 79.
5.Alps Transportation v. Elpidio Rodriguez, 711 Phil. 122, 131 (2013).
6.Id.
7. Entitled "RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE EMPLOYMENT AND WORKING CONDITIONS OF DRIVERS AND CONDUCTORS IN THE PUBLIC UTILITY BUS TRANSPORT INDUSTRY"; approved on January 13, 2012.
8.Tangga-an v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., 706 Phil. 339, 354 (2013).