Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROYAL CROWN INTERNATIONALE v. NLRC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 163657 2012-04-18	INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES v. ROEL P. LOGARTA PERALTA, J.
In the case at bar, despite the fact that respondent was employed by Petrocon as an OFW in Saudi Arabia, still both he and his employer are subject to the provisions of the Labor Code when applicable. The basic policy in this jurisdiction is that all Filipino workers, whether employed locally or overseas, enjoy the protective mantle of Philippine labor and social legislations.[25] In the case of Royal Crown Internationale v. NLRC,[26] this Court has made the policy pronouncement, thus: x x x. Whether employed locally or overseas, all Filipino workers enjoy the protective mantle of Philippine labor and social legislation, contract stipulations to the contrary notwithstanding. This pronouncement is in keeping with the basic public policy of the State to afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employers. x x x[27]
	GR No. 185122 2010-08-16	WENSHA SPA CENTER v. LORETA T. YUNG MENDOZA, J.
The Court finds the LA ruling that states, "[a]bsent any proof submitted by the complainant, this office finds it more probable that the complainant was dismissed due to loss of trust and confidence,"[20] to be utterly erroneous as it is contrary to the applicable rules and pertinent jurisprudence. The onus of proving a valid dismissal rests on the employer, not on the employee.[21] It is the employer who bears the burden of proving that its dismissal of the employee is for a valid or authorized cause supported by substantial evidence. [22]
	GR No. 160506 2010-03-09	JOEB M. ALIVIADO v. PROCTER DEL CASTILLO, J.
Going back to the matter of dismissal, it must be emphasized that the onus probandi to prove the lawfulness of the dismissal rests with the employer.[53] In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause.[54] In the instant case, P&G failed to discharge the burden of proving the legality and validity of the dismissals of those petitioners who are considered its employees. Hence, the dismissals necessarily were not justified and are therefore illegal.
	GR No. 162577 2007-08-17	LBC DOMESTIC FRANCHISE CO. v. RUSSEL E. FLORIDO AZCUNA, J.
In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a valid and just cause. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified, and, therefore, was illegal.[11] It is sufficient to show by substantial evidence that the employee is guilty of misconduct which makes the latter unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.[12]
	GR NO. 157202 2007-03-28	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We find the petition meritorious. Private respondent was validly dismissed by petitioner. It must be borne in mind that the basic principle in termination cases is that the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and, therefore, was illegal.[16] For dismissal to be valid, the evidence must be substantial and not arbitrary and must be founded on clearly established facts.[17] We find that petitioner had discharged this burden.
	GR NO. 164376 2006-07-31	NLRC v. MA. BERNADETTE S. SALGARINO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It must be emphasized at this point that the onus probandi to prove the lawfulness of the dismissal rests with the employer. In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and therefore was illegal.[44] In the instant case, petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proving the legality and validity of respondent's dismissal.