Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL V. SANTOS

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 166581 2015-12-07	SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. CA SERENO, C.J.
On the matter of attorney's fees, we have established that "attorney's fees may be awarded only when the employee is illegally dismissed in bad faith and is compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect his rights by reason of the unjustified acts of his employer."[35] However, "[t]here must always be a factual basis for the award of attorney's fees. This is consistent with the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate."[36]
	GR No. 189457 2011-04-07	SUNRISE HOLIDAY CONCEPTS v. TERESA A. ARUGAY NACHURA, J.
The Ruling of the Court In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee is for a valid cause.[26] Petitioner dismissed respondent from employment because of alleged loss of trust and confidence due to tardiness
	GR No. 168757 2011-01-19	RENATO REAL v. SANGU PHILIPPINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
"In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that [the] dismissal of an employee is for a valid cause."[37] Here, as correctly observed by the Labor Arbiter, respondents failed to produce any convincing proof to support the grounds for which they terminated petitioner. Respondents contend that petitioner has been absent for several months, yet they failed to present any proof that petitioner was indeed absent for such a long time. Also, the fact that petitioner was still able to collect his salaries after his alleged absences casts doubts on the truthfulness of such charge. Respondents likewise allege that petitioner engaged in a heated argument with the employees of Epson, one of respondents' clients. But just like in the charge of absenteeism, there is no showing that an investigation on the matter was done and that disciplinary action was imposed upon petitioner. At any rate, we have reviewed the records of this case and we agree with the Labor Arbiter that under the circumstances, said charges are not sufficient bases for petitioner's termination. As to the charge of breach of trust allegedly committed by petitioner when he established a new company engaged in the same line of business as respondent corporation's and submitted proposals to two of the latter's clients while he was still a Manager, we again observe that these are mere allegations without sufficient proof. To reiterate, allegations must be proven by sufficient evidence because mere allegation is definitely not evidence.[38]
	GR No. 123294 2010-10-20	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. NLRC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Likewise, attorney's fees are not proper in this case because the same can only be awarded when the employee is illegally dismissed in bad faith and is compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect his rights by reason of the unjustified act of his employer.[48] The aforementioned conditions do not obtain in this case.
	GR No. 186289 2010-06-29	ORIENTAL SHIPMANAGEMENT CO. v. ROMY B. BASTOL VELASCO JR., J.
The foregoing provisos manifestly show the non-litigious and the summary nature of the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, who is given full discretion whether to conduct a hearing or not and to decide the case before him through position papers. In Iriga Telephone Co, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[57] the Court discussed the reason why it is discretionary on the part of the Labor Arbiter, who, motu proprio, determines whether to hold a hearing or not. Consequently, a hearing cannot be demanded by either party as a matter of right. The parties are required to file their corresponding position papers and all the documentary evidence and affidavits to prove their cause of action and defenses. The rationale behind this is to avoid delay and curtail the pernicious practice of withholding of evidence. In Pepsi Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Santos,[58] the Court reiterated the Labor Arbiter's discretion not to conduct formal or clarificatory hearings which is not violative of due process, thus: The holding of a formal hearing or trial is discretionary with the Labor Arbiter and is something that the parties cannot demand as a matter of right. The requirements of due process are satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to submit position papers wherein they are supposed to attach all the documents that would prove their claim in case it be decided that no hearing should be conducted or was necessary.[59]
	GR No. 156644 2008-07-28	UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION v. AGRIPINO CABALLEDA NACHURA, J.
Second. It is a well-established rule that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should raise only questions of law, subject to certain exceptions.[26] Whether or not Agripino was a seasonal/project employee or a regular employee is a question of fact.[27] As such, this Court is not at liberty to review the said factual issue because our jurisdiction is generally limited to reviewing errors of law that the CA may have committed. Time and again, we have held that this Court is not a trier of facts, and it is not for us to re-examine and re-evaluate the probative value of evidence presented before the LA, the NLRC and the CA, which formed the basis of the assailed decision. Indeed, when their findings are in absolute agreement, the same are accorded not only respect but even finality as long as they are amply supported by substantial evidence.[28]