This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-12-02 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Time and again we have ruled that in illegal dismissal cases like the present one, the onus of proving that the employee was not dismissed or if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal, rests on the employer and failure to discharge the same would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal. Thus, petitioners must not only rely on the weakness of respondents' evidence but must stand on the merits of their own defense. A party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence for any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand as it will offend due process. x x x[13] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2010-04-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In Abad v. Roselle Cinema, [22] we ruled that the substantial evidence proffered by the employer that it had not terminated the employee should not be ignored on the pretext that the employee would not have filed the complaint for illegal dismissal if he had not really been dismissed. We held that such non sequitur reasoning cannot take the place of the evidence of both the employer and the employee. | |||||
|
2008-09-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The rule in labor cases is that the employer has the burden of proving that the employee was not dismissed or if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal, and failure to discharge the same would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal.[8] In the present case, petitioners were able to show that respondent was neither dismissed nor placed on a "floating status." | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| We are well-aware that in labor cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the employee was not dismissed or, if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal; and failure to discharge the same would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal.[14] | |||||