Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 177785 2008-09-03	RANDY ALMEDA v. ASAHI GLASS PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As petitioners' employer, respondent has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a cause allowed under the law, and that they were afforded procedural due process.[22] However, respondent failed to discharge this burden with substantial evidence as it noticeably narrowed its defense to the denial of any employer-employee relationship between it and petitioners.
	GR NO. 167701 2007-12-12	FERNANDITO P. DE GUZMAN v. NLRC PUNO, C.J.
Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. There are instances, however, where reinstatement is no longer viable as where the business of the employer has closed, or where the relations between the employer and the employee have been so severely strained that it is not advisable to order reinstatement, or where the employee decides not to be reinstated.[24] Since petitioner prayed for an award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, he forecloses reinstatement as a relief by implication. Consequently, in addition to full backwages, petitioner is entitled to separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service, from the time of his illegal dismissal up to the finality of this judgment, as an alternative to reinstatement.
	GR NOS. 169295-96 2006-11-20	REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION v. ERLINDA CASTANEDA PUNO, J.
In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause; failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.[46] The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the employee's defense.[47] If doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter.[48]
	GR Nos. 164684-85 2005-11-11	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. ANTONIO Q. TIAMSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause; failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.[33] The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the employee's defense. If doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter.[34] Moreover, the quantum of proof required in determining the legality of an employee's dismissal is only substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.[35]
	GR No. 148418 2005-07-28	PCL SHIPPING PHILIPPINES v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As to the validity of Lamique's dismissal, the unflinching rule in illegal dismissal cases is that the employer bears the burden of proof[18] to show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.[19] Thus, to effect a completely valid and unassailable dismissal, an employer must show not only a sufficient ground therefore but must also prove that procedural due process has been observed by giving the employee two (2) notices, (1) of the intention to dismiss and (2) the decision to dismiss.[20]
	GR No. 147031 2004-07-27	ELECTRUCK ASIA v. EMMANUEL M. MERIS CARPIO MORALES, J.
Respecting the CA's order for the reinstatement of respondents without loss of seniority rights and privileges, since petitioner has already filed a petition for insolvency which was granted by the RTC of Bataan,[37] reinstatement is no longer feasible. In lieu of reinstatement then, payment to respondents of separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service is in order.[38]
	GR No. 158255 2004-07-08	MANILA WATER COMPANY v. HERMINIO D. PENA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As private respondents' employer, petitioner has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a cause allowed under the law and that they were afforded procedural due process.[24] Petitioner failed to discharge this burden by substantial evidence as it maintained the defense that it was not the employer of private respondents. Having established that the schemes employed by petitioner were devious attempts to defeat the tenurial rights of private respondents and that it failed to comply with the requirements of termination under the Labor Code, the dismissal of the private respondent is tainted with illegality.