This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-01-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Necessarily, respondents' contention that they were denied due process because of improper service of summons and notices is devoid of merit. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. What the law prohibits is absolute absence of the opportunity to be heard; hence, a party cannot feign denial of due process where he had been afforded the opportunity to present his side.[47] A formal or trial type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due process, the requirements of which are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy. | |||||
|
2008-07-21 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| The claim of Oxales to moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees must also be denied for want of basis in law or jurisprudence. On this score, We echo the pronouncement of the Court in Audion v. Electric Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[61] to wit:Moral and exemplary damages are recoverable only where the dismissal of an employee was attended by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith. It is not enough that one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish, serious anxiety as the result of the actuations of the other party. Invariably, such action must be shown to have been willfully done in bad faith or with ill motive, and bad faith or ill motive under the law cannot be presumed but must be established with clear and convincing evidence. Private respondent predicated his claim for such damages on his own allegations of sleepless | |||||
|
2008-06-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| While the absence of a written contract does not automatically confer regular status, it has been construed by this Court as a red flag in cases involving the question of whether the workers concerned are regular or project employees. In Grandspan Development Corporation v. Bernardo [31] and Audion Electric Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission ,[32] this Court took note of the fact that the employer was unable to present employment contracts signed by the workers, which stated the duration of the project. In another case, Raycor v. Aircontrol Systems, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, [33] this Court refused to give any weight to the employment contracts offered by the employers as evidence, which contained the signature of the president and general manager, but not the signatures of the employees. In cases where this Court ruled that construction workers repeatedly rehired retained their status as project employees, the employers were able to produce employment contracts clearly stipulating that the workers' employment was coterminous with the project to support their claims that the employees were notified of the scope and duration of the project. [34] | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Third, Burger Machine made an unauthorized[22] deduction on petitioner's salary representing the alleged expenses incurred without authority. The burden of proving that no such deduction was made lies with Burger Machine not only because it has custody of the records that might establish the same, but also because as an employer, it is placed in a position of a debtor who has the onus of establishing payment of the employee's salary in full and without deduction.[23] Hence, its bare denials cannot overcome the contention of petitioner that such deductions were made. | |||||
|
2001-02-21 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| As we find petitioners not entitled to moral damages, "an award of exemplary damages is likewise baseless."[23] "Where the award of moral and exemplary damages is eliminated, so must the award for attorney's fees be deleted."[24] | |||||