Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR NOS. 166143-47 2006-11-20	ABDUSAKUR M. TAN v. COMELEC VELASCO, JR., J.
In Labor Congress of the Philippines v. NLRC,[60] we have made it clear that "to allow fresh issues on appeal is violative of the rudiments of fair play, justice and due process."[61] Likewise, in Orosa v. Court of Appeals,[62] the Court disallowed it because "it would be offensive to the basic rule of fair play, justice and due process if it considered [the] issue[s] raised for the first time on appeal." We cannot take an opposite stance in the present case.
	GR NO. 168931 2006-09-12	PAULINO ALITEN v. U-NEED LUMBER CALLEJO, SR., J.
To reiterate, abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed from certain equivocal acts. There must be clear proof of deliberate and unjustified intent to sever the employment relationship. Certainly, the operative act is still the employee's decisive act of putting an end to his employment.[26] Additionally, it must be stressed that the burden of proving the existence of just cause for dismissing an employee, such as abandonment, rests on the employer, a burden private respondent failed to discharge.[27]