This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-08-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| While petitioner mainly argues against the use of the equipoise rule, it cannot escape this Court's attention that ultimately petitioner is asking this Court to resolve the propriety of the dismissal of the case by the RTC, on the basis of the Information and the attached documents it had filed. This Court however, will defer to the findings of fact of the RTC, which are accorded great weight and respect, more so because the same were affirmed by the CA. In addition, it bears to stress that the instant case is a petition for certiorari where questions of fact are not entertained.[47] | |||||
|
2004-11-25 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners argued that they "exerted diligent and massive efforts" to make respondents return to work, highlighting the telegrams and memoranda sent to respondents.[20] It is well established that to constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. Abandoning one's job means the deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment and the burden of proof is on the employer to show a clear and deliberate intent on the part of the employee to discontinue employment.[21] | |||||