This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-01-26 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| However, the burden of proving that such closure is bona fide falls upon the employer.[17] In the present case, JAT justifies its closure of business due to heavy losses caused by declining sales. It belatedly submitted its 1997 Income Statement[18] and Comparative Statement of Income and Capital for 1997 and 1998[19] to the NLRC to prove that JAT suffered losses starting 1997. However, as noted earlier, these were not given much evidentiary weight by the NLRC as well as the Court of Appeals, to wit:The financial statements submitted by the respondents on appeal are questionable for the following reasons: (1) the figures in Annexes "D-2" and "E" of the appeal memorandum (which both refer to 1997) do not tally; (2) they (the respondents) allegedly closed on March 1, 1998. Yet, their 1998 financial statement (Annex "E") indicates operations up to and ending December 31, 1998. In view of the foregoing, the above-mentioned financial statements do not justify the complainant's dismissal. …[20] | |||||
|
2000-05-11 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The first issue involves a question of fact. It is well-settled that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies such as the NLRC are generally accorded not only respect but, at times, even finality. However, the rule is not absolute and admits of certain well-recognized exceptions. Thus, when the findings of fact of the NLRC are not supported by substantial evidence,[4] capricious or arbitrary, and directly at variance with those of the Labor Arbiter,[5] this Court may make an independent evaluation of the facts of the case. | |||||