Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TIMES TRANSPORTATION CO. INC. v. NLRC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 171118 2012-09-10	PARK HOTEL v. MANOLO SORIANO PERALTA, J.
The requisites for a valid dismissal are: (a) the employee must be afforded due process, i.e., he must be given an opportunity to be heard and defend himself; and (b) the dismissal must be for a valid cause as provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code, or for any of the authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284 of the same Code.[25] In the case before us, both elements are completely lacking. Respondents were dismissed without any just or authorized cause and without being given the opportunity to be heard and defend themselves. The law mandates that the burden of proving the validity of the termination of employment rests with the employer. Failure to discharge this evidentiary burden would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and, therefore, illegal. Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of employers do not provide for legal justification for dismissing employees. In case of doubt, such cases should be resolved in favor of labor, pursuant to the social justice policy of labor laws and the Constitution.[26]
	GR NO. 178976 2009-07-31	ABELARDO P. ABEL v. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
The law mandates that the burden of proving the validity of the termination of employment rests with the employer. Failure to discharge this evidentiary burden would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and, therefore, illegal. Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of employers do not provide legal justification for dismissing employees. In case of doubt, such cases should be resolved in favor of labor pursuant to the social justice policy of labor laws and the Constitution.[20]
	GR No. 167622 2008-11-07	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. VELASCO JR., J.
The law mandates that the burden of proving the validity of the termination of employment rests with the employer. Failure to discharge this evidentiary burden would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified, and, therefore, illegal. Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations and conclusions of employers do not provide for legal justification for dismissing employees. In case of doubt, such cases should be resolved in favor of labor, pursuant to the social justice policy of our labor laws and Constitution.[28]
	GR No. 173151 2008-03-28	EDUARDO BUGHAW v. TREASURE ISLAND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The law mandates that it is incumbent upon the employer to prove the validity of the termination of employment.[32] Failure to discharge this evidentiary burden would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and, therefore, illegal.[33] Unsubstantiated claims as to alleged compliance with the mandatory provisions of law cannot be favored by this Court. In case of doubt, such cases should be resolved in favor of labor, pursuant to the social justice policy of our labor laws and Constitution.[34]
	GR NO. 163786 2005-02-16	TIMES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. SANTOS SOTELO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Times and TEU both appealed the decision of the NLRC, which the Court of Appeals affirmed on November 17, 2000.[7] Upon denial of its motion for reconsideration, Times filed a petition for review on certiorari,[8] docketed as G.R. Nos. 148500-01, now pending with the Third Division of this Court. TEU likewise appealed but its petition was denied due course.