This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2013-06-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| For a dismissal to be valid, the rule is that the employer must comply with both substantive and procedural due process requirements.[35] Substantive due process requires that the dismissal must be pursuant to either a just or an authorized cause under Articles 282, 283 or 284 of the Labor Code.[36] Procedural due process, on the other hand, mandates that the employer must observe the twin requirements of notice and hearing before a dismissal can be effected.[37] | |||||
|
2009-07-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In exceptional cases, however, we may be constrained to delve into and resolve factual issues when there is insufficient or insubstantial evidence to support the findings of the tribunal or court below, or when too much is concluded, inferred or deduced from the bare or incomplete facts submitted by the parties, or where the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC came up with conflicting positions.[52] The case at bar constitutes one of these exceptional cases. | |||||
|
2007-09-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A rule well articulated in our jurisprudence is that in labor cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the employee was not dismissed or if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal, and failure to discharge the same would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal.[24] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Finally, we find that respondents were illegally dismissed. In labor cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just cause; failure to show this would necessarily mean that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal. To allow an employer to dismiss an employee based on mere allegations and generalities would place the employee at the mercy of his employer; and the right to security of tenure, which this Court is bound to protect, would be unduly emasculated.[24] In this case, petitioner merely contended that it was respondents who ceased to report to work, and never presented any substantial evidence to support said allegation. Petitioner therefore failed to discharge its burden, hence, respondents were correctly declared to have been illegally dismissed. | |||||
|
2007-04-03 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| We too are convinced that the letters were merely a subterfuge. It is noted that at the bottom of the letters are imprints of registry receipts but there are missing important details which could have linked the registry receipts to the letters sent by NSTSI to Zeta. It is doubtful whether the registry receipts actually refer to the letters; hence, they are not reliable evidence that NSTSI actually sent the letters and that Zeta received them.[35] The CA did not err in holding that petitioner failed to prove that due notices were sent to and received by Zeta. | |||||
|
2006-07-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The rule in labor cases is that the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just cause; failure to show this would necessarily mean that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal.[17] The two-fold requirements for a valid dismissal are as follows: (1) dismissal must be for a cause provided for in the Labor Code, which is substantive; and (2) the observance of notice and hearing prior to the employee's dismissal, which is procedural.[18] | |||||
|
2005-01-31 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, from a reading of the May 7, 2001 Decision[13] in Criminal Case No. 23518, it is apparent that the Sandiganbayan did not in any way rule on the validity or the falsity of the questioned documents. Nothing in the Decision prevents respondent judge from making his own determination on such matters. Nothing also bars him from ruling on the guilt or the innocence of the accused in the present case. | |||||