This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-02-11 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| A fundamental principle in Philippine labor law is the application of the four-fold test in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, thus: (1) selection and engagement; (2) payment of wages; (3) power to dismiss; and (4) power of control over the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished.[8] There are, however, instances when these elements are not exercised by a single person or entity. There are cases where one or more of the said factors are assumed by another entity, for which reason, the Court made it clear that of the four tests mentioned, it is the power of control that is determinative.[9] One such instance is whenever an employer supplies workers to another pursuant to a contracting agreement, i.e., job contracting. | |||||
|
2011-07-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, petitioner failed to present any competent evidence, documentary or otherwise, to prove her claim that the subject contract is an equitable mortgage and not a sale with right of repurchase. It is settled that the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence.[14] In fact, it appears from all indications that petitioner's claim of equitable mortgage is simply an afterthought subsequent to her realization that she cannot repurchase the subject property within the period stipulated in her contract with petitioners. It is plainly a ploy to resurrect a right which has already expired. | |||||
|
2011-03-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, petitioner BPI's prayer in the instant petition to set aside the award of separation pay is likewise barred by the principle of res judicata. In its concept as a bar by prior judgment under Section 47(b) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,[31] res judicata dictates that a judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction operates as an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same cause of action since that judgment is conclusive not only as to the matters offered and received to sustain it but also as to any other matter which might have been offered for that purpose and which could have been adjudged therein.[32] To apply this doctrine, the following essential requisites should be satisfied: 1) finality of the former judgment; 2) the court which rendered the judgment had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; 3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and 4) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.[33] | |||||
|
2009-08-28 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Except to correct clerical errors,[14] a judgment which has acquired finality can no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct a perceived erroneous conclusion of fact or law.[15] There would be no end to litigation if parties are allowed to relitigate issues which were already resolved with finality. | |||||