This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-01-28 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that in termination cases, the burden of proving that the dismissal of the employees was for a valid and authorized cause rests on the employer. It is incumbent upon the employer to show by substantial evidence that the termination of the employment of the employees was validly made and failure to discharge that duty would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal.[50] "Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise."[51] | |||||
|
2011-11-16 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Denying the charge of illegal dismissal, FI insists that Granfil abandoned his employment after he was transferred from his assignment at the NBS Megamall Branch as a consequence of the latter's request for his relief.[22] In the same manner that it cannot be said to have discharged the above-discussed burden by merely alleging that it did not dismiss the employee, it has been ruled that an employer cannot expediently escape liability for illegal dismissal by claiming that the former abandoned his work.[23] This applies to FI which adduced no evidence to prove Granfil's supposed abandonment beyond submitting copies of NBS' 31 July 2002 request for said employee's transfer[24] and its 1 August 2002 written acquiescence thereto.[25] While these documents may have buttressed the claim that Granfil was indeed recalled from his assignment, however, we find that the CA correctly discounted their probative value insofar as FI's theory of abandonment is concerned. | |||||
|
2009-03-13 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be inferred or legally presumed from certain equivocal acts. For abandonment to exist, two requisites must concur: first, the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and second, there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship as manifested by some overt acts. The second element is the more determinative factor. Abandonment as a just ground for dismissal thus requires clear, willful, deliberate, and unjustified refusal of the employee to resume employment. Mere absence or failure to report for work, even after notice to return, is not tantamount to abandonment.[10] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2007-04-03 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It bears emphasis that for termination of employment on the ground of abandonment to be considered valid, the employer must prove,[27] by substantial evidence,[28] the concurrence of two essential requisites: first, the failure of the employee to report for work or his absence from work without valid or justifiable reason;[29] and second, his clear and deliberate intention to discontinue his employment.[30] The second requisite, considered to be the more crucial one, may be established by evidence of overt acts on the part of the employee from which may be inferred a lack of intention to resume his work.[31] | |||||