This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-06-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Hence, even though the absence of a written contract does not by itself grant regular status to respondents, such a contract is evidence that respondents were informed of the duration and scope of their work and their status as project employees. In this case, where no other evidence was offered, the absence of an employment contract puts into serious question whether the employees were properly informed at the onset of their employment status as project employees. It is doctrinally entrenched that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving with clear, accurate, consistent and convincing evidence that a dismissal was valid.[35] Absent any other proof that the project employees were informed of their status as such, it will be presumed that they are regular employees in accordance with Clause 3.3(a) of Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993, which states that:a) Project employees whose aggregate period of continuous employment in a construction company is at least one year shall be considered regular employees, in the absence of a "day certain" agreed upon by the parties for the termination of their relationship. Project employees who have become regular shall be entitled to separation pay. | |||||
|
2007-09-07 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In addition, Sunga's statement has no probative value in the absence of corroborating evidence. Petitioners should have offered in evidence the proceedings conducted in the course of the administrative investigation, if one was indeed conducted. Accusation cannot take the place of proof. A suspicion or belief no matter how sincerely felt cannot be a substitute for factual findings carefully established through an orderly procedure.[11] | |||||