This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-11-24 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is settled that, in labor cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the employee was not dismissed, or, if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal. Failure to discharge this burden would be tantamount to an unjustified and illegal dismissal.[25] | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Although under normal circumstances, an employee's act of filing an illegal dismissal complaint against his employer is inconsistent with abandonment; in the present case, we simply cannot use that one act to conclude that Pulgar did not terminate his employment with PRRM, and in the process ignore the clear, substantial evidence presented by PRRM that proves otherwise. Our ruling on this point in Leopard Integrated Services, Inc. v. Macalinao is very relevant. We said: [23] | |||||
|
2010-04-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We are not unmindful of the rule in labor cases that the employer has the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause; however, it is likewise incumbent upon the employees that they should first establish by competent evidence the fact of their dismissal from employment.[17] The one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and the proof should be clear, positive and convincing.[18] In this case, aside from mere allegations, no evidence was proffered by the petitioners that they were dismissed from employment. The records are bereft of any indication that petitioners were prevented from returning to work or otherwise deprived of any work assignment by respondents. | |||||