[BURDEN OF PROOF IN ILLEGAL DISMISSAL CASES]  As held in AMA vs.

 As held in AMA vs. Ignacio, “In termination cases, the burden of proof rests
GURANGO VS. BEST CHEMICALS
August 25, 2010 | CARPIO, J.
Petitioner/s: Alex Gurango
Respondents: Best Chemicals and Plastics Inc. and Moon Pyo Hong
Doctrine: In termination cases, the employer has the burden of proving, by
substantial evidence, that the dismissal is for just cause. If the employer fails to
discharge the burden of proof, the dismissal is deemed illegal.
Facts:
 Petitioner Alex Gurango, a boiler operator at Best Chemicals (BCPI), was
dismissed by the company on May 20, 2003. There are two conflicting sets
of facts as to what transpired on May 5, that eventually led to his dismissal:
 Gurango: While performing his routine check-up inside the production
area, security guard Romeo Albao pulled him, tried to confiscate the
camera without film in his pocket, and then later, punched him on the
face. Another security guard, Rodenio Pabilis, joined in hitting him.
 Albao: Gurango tried to enter the production area bringing a camera,
which is disallowed inside. Gurango got mad and tried to grab Albao’s
gun. Then, they engaged in a fistfight.
 Gurango’s co-worker, Elvin Juanitas, testified that he saw Gurango being
brought to the guardhouse, where he was hit again by the guards. Then, he
heard that Gurango agreed to surrender the camera on the condition that the
guards would prepare a document acknowledging receipt of the camera.
 BCPI then wrote to Gurango, asking him to explain in writing why no
disciplinary action should be taken against him, and also to inform him that
he is placed under preventive suspension.
 In his reply, Gurango reiterated that he was never involved in any fistfight,
nor did he commit any violation of the Company’s Code of Discipline. He
also challenged the propriety of the preventive suspension.
 BCPI wrote another letter to Gurango, this time informing him that he was
found guilty of engaging in a fistfight and of violating company policy by
bringing a camera.
 Gurango wrote a letter, again reiterating that he was never committed any
violation of the Company’s Code of Discipline. Ha also filed with the MCTC a
criminal complaint against the concerned security guards of BCPI.
 BCPI dismissed Gurango effective May 20, 2003.
 Gurango filed a complaint with the NLRC.
 Labor Arbiter found BCPI liable for illegal dismissal, which NLRC affirmed.
 CA reversed NLRC ruling and held that the dismissal was proper, as
engaging in a fistfight constituted serious misconduct.
on the employer to show that the dismissal is for just cause. When there is
no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for the termination of
employment, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal, and the
burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for a valid or
authorized cause.”
 In the present case, aside from Albao’s statement, BCPI did not present any
evidence to show that Gurango engaged in a fistfight. Also, there is no
showing that Gurango’s actions were performed with wrongful intent.
 The surrounding circumstances show that Gurango did not engage in a
fistfight:
 Juanitas corroborated Gurango’s version of the facts, in his letter to
BCPI.
 Nobody corroborated Albao’s version of facts.
 In his medical report, Gurango was shown to have suffered physical
injuries.
 Gurango filed with the MCTC a complaint for slight physical injury.
 Labor Arbiter and NLRC found Gurango’s statement credible and
unblemished, and they found Albao’s to be unbelievable and
exaggerated.
 CA’s reversal of the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC
is baseless.
Dispositive
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the 20 July 2006 Decision
and 11 September 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 94004
and REINSTATE the 17 October 2005 and 24 January 2006 Resolutions of the NLRC
in CA No. 044428-05.

Issues/Ruling:
W/N Gurango was illegally dismissed by BCPI – YES, BCPI failed to discharge the
burden of proof that the dismissal is for just cause.
 In termination cases, the employer has the burden of proving, by substantial
evidence, that the dismissal is for just cause. If the employer fails to
discharge the burden of proof, the dismissal is deemed illegal.