This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2013-02-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Concerning the second issue, the NLRC and the CA differed from each other, with the CA concluding, unlike the NLRC, that Supersonic did not comply with the two-written notice rule. In the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, then, this Court should now re-evaluate and re-examine the relevant findings.[12] | |||||
|
2012-07-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The issue of whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondent is essentially a question of fact.[9] The factors that determine the issue include who has the power to select the employee, who pays the employee's wages, who has the power to dismiss the employee, and who exercises control of the methods and results by which the work of the employee is accomplished.[10] Although no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of the relationship, and any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted,[11] a finding that the relationship exists must nonetheless rest on substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[12] | |||||
|
2012-02-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Fly Ace dismisses Javier's claims of employment as baseless assertions. Aside from his bare allegations, he presented nothing to substantiate his status as an employee. "It is a basic rule of evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation. If he claims a right granted by law, he must prove his claim by competent evidence, relying on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of his opponent."[21] Invoking the case of Lopez v. Bodega City,[22] Fly Ace insists that in an illegal dismissal case, the burden of proof is upon the complainant who claims to be an employee. It is essential that an employer-employee relationship be proved by substantial evidence. Thus, it cites: In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause. However, before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an employer-employee relationship must first be established. | |||||
|
2011-07-27 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| [18] Lopez v. Bodega City, G.R. No. 155731, September 3, 2007, 532 SCRA 56, 64; Manila Water Company, Inc. v. Peña, G.R. No. 158255, July 8, 2004, 434 SCRA 53, 58-59. | |||||
|
2010-06-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is a settled rule that only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari of CA decisions.[6] However, there are well-recognized exceptions to this rule, as in this case, when the factual findings of the NLRC as affirmed by the CA contradict those of the Labor Arbiter.[7] In cases like this, it is this Court's task, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, to re-evaluate and review the factual issues by looking into the records of the case and re-examining the questioned findings.[8] | |||||
|
2010-04-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As for petitioner Abueva, he is not entitled to his claims. The NLRC excluded Abueva in its judgment award, ruling that he is not an employee but a mere contractor. The existence of an employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact.[25] Settled is the rule that only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court.[26] Factual findings of administrative and quasi-judicial agencies specializing in their respective fields, especially when affirmed by the CA, must be accorded high respect, if not finality.[27] | |||||
|
2008-08-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The existence of an employer-employee relationship is essentially a question of fact.[20] Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC are generally accorded respect and finality if supported by substantial evidence.[21] | |||||