This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-04-11 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The Petition before the CA did not present anything to show that the remedies available to the GSIS were insufficient. If the Petition itself admitted to the existence of other remedies,[58] then the burden of proving that there was an exception was on the party seeking that exception; in the absence of proof the Petition must be denied.[59] This burden of proof is "the duty of a party to present such amount of evidence on the facts in issue as the law deems necessary for the establishment of his claim."[60] | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In its own Memorandum,[16] the CSC, through the OSG, argues that constructive dismissal is not applicable in this case because it was Pacheo herself who adamantly refused to report for work either in her original station or new place of assignment in clear violation of Section 24 (f) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 807.[17] Citing jurisprudence,[18] the CSC avers that the RTAO is immediately executory, unless otherwise ordered by the CSC. Therefore, Pacheo should have first reported to her new place of assignment and then appealed her case to the CSC if she indeed believed that there was no justification for her reassignment. Since Pacheo did not report for work at all, she is not entitled to backwages following the principle of "no work, no pay." | |||||