This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-08-31 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We likewise ruled in Flores v. Nuestro[29] that a corporation who registers its workers with the SSS is proof that the latter were the former's employees. The coverage of Social Security Law is predicated on the existence of an employer-employee relationship. | |||||
|
2000-02-07 |
PURISIMA, J. |
||||
| For unexplained absence to constitute abandonment, there must be a clear, deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to continue his employment, without any intention of returning.[7] The Court has repeatedly held that mere absence does not suffice to constitute abandonment. The absence must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly showing that the employee simply does not want to work anymore. In the case of Artemio Labor, et al. vs. NLRC and Gold City Commercial Complex, Inc. and Rudy Uy,[8] it was held that to constitute abandonment, two elements must concur, to wit: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. | |||||