This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-06-26 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Second, there was no clear intention on the respondent's part to sever the employer-employee relationship. Considering that "intention" is a mental state, the petitioner must show that the respondent's overt acts point unerringly to his intent not to work anymore.[23] In this case, we see no reason to depart from the unanimous factual findings of the NLRC and the CA that the respondent's actions after his absence from work for ten (10) days due to illness showed his willingness to return to work. Both tribunals found that after the respondent presented his medical certificate to the petitioner to explain his absence, he even went back to his doctor for a certification that he was already fit to return to work. These findings of fact we duly accept as findings that we must not only respect, but consider as final, since they are supported by substantial evidence.[24] | |||||
|
2006-08-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Moreover, we are inclined to agree with the appellate court that petitioner took undue advantage of respondent's predicament and dire financial needs to let him sign the quitclaim in exchange for his retirement benefits.[11] The subordinate position of the individual employee vis-à-vis management renders him especially vulnerable to the employer's financial importuning, and at times even intimidation. In certain cases, we note that the desperate family situation of an employee forces him to improvidently waive his benefits. Thus, we have always looked upon quitclaims, waivers or releases with disfavor for being contrary to public policy, hence ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of the workers' legal rights.[12] | |||||