Digest:TEGIMENTA CHEMICAL PHILS v. OCO

TEGIMENTA CHEMICAL PHILS. AND VIVIAN ROSE D. GARCIA v. MARY ANNE OCO
G.R. No. 175369, February 27, 2013
SERENO, J.:
 

Facts:

Respondent worked as a clerk, and later on as a material controller, for petitioner Tegimenta Chemical Philippines, Incorporated (Tegimenta), a company owned by petitioner Vivian Rose D. Garcia (Garcia).

By reason of her pregnancy, Oco incurred numerous instances of absence and tardiness. Garcia subsequently advised her to take a vacation

On her return, Garcia allegedly told her to no longer report to the office effective that day.

Respondent filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal and prayed for reinstatement and back wages before the LA. ater on, she amended her Complaint by asking for separation pay instead of reinstatement.

·         LA disbelieved the narration of petitioners and thus ruled in favor of respondent.

·         Aggrieved, petitioners appealed to the NLRC. the NLRC still affirmed the LA’s Decision in toto

·         Thus, petitioners pursued their action before the CA via a Rule 65 Petition.

·         CA in favor Oco

·         Dissatisfied Completely dissatisfied with the reversal of their fortune, petitioners implore this Court (1) to discredit the allegation of Oco that she had in fact been dismissed by them and (2) to make a finding that she abandoned her work by being on AWOL.

Issue:

          Whether silence constitutes an admission.

Held:

Yes. Most notably, the LA observed that the employers “did not deny the claims of complainant [Oco] that she was simply told not to work.” As in Solas v. Power & Telephone Supply Phils. Inc., this silence constitutes an admission that fortifies the truth of the employee’s narration. Section 32, Rule 130 of the Rules Court, provides:

An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him.

Considering this rule of evidence, together with the immaterial discrepancies, this Court thus rules against wholly invalidating the findings of the courts a quo.