Cases (Substantial Evidence) Flashcards
Ramos was employed by BPI Family as Vice-President for Dealer Network Marketing/Auto Loans Division. His duties and responsibilities includes the receipt and approval of applications for auto loans from auto dealers and salesmen. During his tenure, a person pretending to be their valued client Acosta secured another auto loan from BPI Family which had remained unpaid. After investigation, BPI Family discovered that: (1) a person misrepresented herself as Acosta and succeeded in obtaining the delivery of a Toyota Prado pursuant to the Purchase Order (PO) and Authority to Deliver (ATD) issued by Ramos; (2) Ramos released these documents without the prior approval of BPI Family’s credit committee. Consequently, Ramos’ employment was severed and his last pay and benefits were deducted with a portion of the losses incurred by BPI due to the Acosta incident. Claiming that the deductions made by BPI Family were illegal, Ramos filed a complaint for underpayment of retirement benefits against BPI. Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Ramos’s complaint. NLRC reversed the LA in a Decision alleged negligence committed by Ramos was not substantially proven as he was not expected to personally examine all loan documents that pass through his hands or to require the client to personally appear before him because he has subordinates to do those details for him. CA affirmed the finding of negligence on the part of Ramos, holding that Ramos was remiss in his duty. But it also attributed negligence on the part of BPI Family since it sanctioned the practice of issuing the PO and ATD prior to the approval of the credit committee. Finding BPI Family’s negligence to be concurrent with Ramos, the CA found it improper to deduct the entire P546,000.00 from Ramos ’s retirement benefits and, instead, equitably reduced the same to the amount of P200,000.00.
ISSUE: Whether or not findings of fact by a labor tribunal may be assailed by petition for certiorari.
As a general rule, in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the appellate court does not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC based their conclusion. The query in this proceeding is limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision. However, as an exception, the appellate court may examine and measure the factual findings of the NLRC if the same are not supported by substantial evidence. The Court has not hesitated to affirm the appellate court’s reversals of the decisions of labor tribunals if they are not supported by substantial evidence . The requirement that the NLRC’s findings should be supported by substantial evidence is clearly expressed in Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court which provides that “in cases filed before administrative or quasi- judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.”Applying the foregoing considerations, the Court finds the CA to have erred in attributing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in finding that the deduction made from Ramos’s retirement benefits was improper as BPI was not able to substantially prove its imputation of negligence against Ramos. Well- settled is the rule that the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue.
