This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-07-27 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| [24] Martinez v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 117495, May 29, 1997, 272 SCRA 793, 801; P.T. Cerna Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91622, April 6, 1993, 221 SCRA 19, 25. | |||||
|
2007-02-07 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| At any rate, the Supreme Court has time and again ruled that while Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended requiring a cash or surety bond in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from for the appeal to be perfected, may be considered a jurisdictional requirement, nevertheless, adhering to the principle that substantial justice is better served by allowing the appeal on the merits threshed out by this Honorable Commission, the foregoing requirement of the law should be given a liberal interpretation (Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Sison, 149 SCRA 238; C.W. Tan Mfg. v. NLRC, 170 SCRA 240; YBL v. NLRC, 190 SCRA 160; Rada v. NLRC, 205 SCRA 69; Star Angel Handicraft v. NLRC, 236 SCRA 580).[16] On the other hand, with regard to the substantive aspect of the case, the Court agrees with the CA that an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondents. In Martinez v. National Labor Relations Commission,[17] citing National Labor Union v. Dinglasan,[18] the Court ruled that:[T]he relationship between jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers under the boundary system is that of employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee because in the lease of chattels the lessor loses complete control over the chattel leased although the lessee cannot be reckless in the use thereof, otherwise he would be responsible for the damages to the lessor. In the case of jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the former exercises supervision and control over the latter. The fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages but get only that in excess of the so-called "boundary" [that] they pay to the owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from that of employer and employee. Thus, private respondents were employees ... because they had been engaged to perform activities which were usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.[19] The same principle was reiterated in the case of Paguio Transport Corporation v. NLRC.[20] | |||||
|
2005-09-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Beyond the bare allegations that the respondent Judge and the respondent Sheriff committed grave abuse of authority, there is nothing in the records that would indicate that they, indeed, committed the crime charged. We have stressed time and again that allegations must be proven by sufficient evidence. Mere allegation is not evidence,[20] and is not equivalent to proof.[21] | |||||
|
2005-02-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[12] Further, the complainants have the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in their complaint.[13] The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence,[14] and is not equivalent to proof.[15] | |||||