This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-11-26 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Although abandonment of work is not included in the enumeration, this court has held that "abandonment is a form of neglect of duty."[64] To prove abandonment, two elements must concur: Failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and | |||||
|
2014-03-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The CA, therefore, correctly regarded Llamas as constructively dismissed for the petitioners' failure to prove the alleged just cause abandonment for his dismissal. Constructive dismissal exists when there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely. Constructive dismissal is a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not. In constructive dismissal cases, the employer is, concededly, charged with the burden of proving that its conduct and action were for valid and legitimate grounds.[43] The petitioners' persistent refusal to give Llamas the key to his assigned taxi cab, on the condition that he should first sign the resignation letter, rendered, without doubt, his continued employment impossible, unreasonable and unlikely; it, thus, constituted constructive dismissal. | |||||
|
2014-01-20 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "Where facts are in evidence affording legitimate inferences going to establish the ultimate fact that the evidence is designed to prove, and the party to be affected by the proof, with an opportunity to do so, fails to deny or explain them, they may well be taken as admitted with all the effect of the inferences afforded."[58] If CCBPI expects to proceed with its case against petitioner, it should have negated this policy, for its existence and application are inextricably tied to CCBPI's accusations against petitioner. In the first place, as petitioner's employer, upon it lay the burden of proving by convincing evidence that he was dismissed for cause.[59] If petitioner continued to work until June 2004, this meant that he committed no infraction, going by this company policy; it could also mean that any infraction or shortage/non-remittance incurred by petitioner has been duly settled. Respondents' decision to ignore this issue generates the belief that petitioner is telling the truth, and that the alleged infractions are fabricated, or have been forgiven. Coupled with Macatangay's statement which remains equally unrefuted that the charges against petitioner are a scheme by local CCBPI management to cover up problems in the Naga City Plant, the conclusion is indeed telling that petitioner is being wrongfully made to account. | |||||
|
2013-09-25 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it bears emphasizing that the inconsistent factual findings and conclusions of the LA and NLRC have already been addressed and settled by the CA when it affirmed the latter tribunal.[26] Hence, the Court, not being a trier of facts, ought to accord respect if not finality to the findings of the CA especially when the same are amply substantiated by the records, [27] as in this case. | |||||
|
2013-08-07 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay."[51] It is a "dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not."[52] Constructive dismissal may likewise exist if an "act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment."[53] "Constructive dismissal exists when the employee involuntarily resigns due to the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions set by the employer."[54] "The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances."[55] | |||||
|
2013-07-10 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Abandonment is a form of neglect of duty, one of the just causes for an employer to terminate an employee.[34] For abandonment to exist, two factors must be present: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor being manifested by some overt acts.[35] | |||||
|
2013-01-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Admittedly, the above rule is not ironclad.[30] There are instances in which factual issues may be resolved by this Court, to wit: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) the Court of Appeals goes beyond the issues of the case, and its findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellees; (7) the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court (in this case, the Labor Arbiter and NLRC); (8) said findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[31] | |||||