Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 177414 2008-11-14	NOEL E. MORA v. AVESCO MARKETING CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
In Mobile Protective & Detective Agency v. Ompad,[25] the Court held that should an employer interpose the defense of resignation, as in the present case, it is still incumbent upon the employer, respondent herein, to prove that the employee voluntarily resigned.
	GR No. 175988 2007-08-24	MA. FININA E. VICENTE v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Petitioner argues that the employer bears the burden of proof that the resignation is voluntary and not the product of coercion or intimidation. We agree that in termination cases, burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.[19] In Mobile Protective & Detective Agency v. Ompad,[20] the Court ruled that should an employer interpose the defense of resignation, as in the present case, it is still incumbent upon respondent company to prove that the employee voluntarily resigned.