Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE V. SALVADOR v. PHILIPPINE MINING SERVICE CORPORATION

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 174208 2012-01-25	JONATHAN V. MORALES v. HARBOUR CENTRE PORT TERMINAL PEREZ, J.
By itself, HCPTI's claim of reorganization is bereft of any supporting evidence in the record. Having pointed out the matter in his 31 March 2003 written protest, Morales was able to prove that HCPTI's existing plantilla did not include an Operations Cost Accounting Department and/or an Operations Cost Accountant.[51] As the party belatedly seeking to justify the reassignment due to the supposed reorganization of its corporate structure, HCPTI, in contrast, did not even bother to show that it had implemented a corporate reorganization and/or approved a new plantilla of positions which included the one to which Morales was being transferred. Since the burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue, the respondent has to prove the allegations in his affirmative defenses in the same manner that the complainant has to prove the allegations in the complaint.[52] In administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings like those conducted before the NLRC, the standard of proof is substantial evidence which is understood to be more than just a scintilla or such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[53]
	GR No. 183122 2011-06-15	GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION v. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION PEREZ, J.
Inasmuch as mere allegation is not evidence, the basic evidentiary rule is to the effect that the burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue has the burden of proving the same [65] with such quantum of evidence required by law. In administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings like those conducted before the NLRC, the standard of proof is substantial evidence which is understood to be more than just a scintilla or such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. [66] Since it does not mean just any evidence in the record of the case for, otherwise, no finding of fact would be wanting in basis, the test to be applied is whether a reasonable mind, after considering all the relevant evidence in the record of a case, would accept the findings of fact as adequate. [67] Viewed in the light of Union's failure to prove the factual bases for the computation of the same, we find that the NLRC correctly affirmed Executive Labor Arbiter Violeta Ortiz-Bantug's exclusion of the following benefits from the order dated 27 October, 2005, to wit: (a) vacation leave salary rate differentials; (b) sick leave salary rate differentials; (c) dislocation allowance; (d) separation pay for voluntary resignation; and (e) separation pay salary rate differentials. [68] For want of substantial evidence to prove the same, the CA's Eighteenth Division also correctly brushed aside GMC's insistence on the deduction of the additional benefits it purportedly extended to its employees from 1 December 1991 to 30 November 1993. [69]
	GR Nos. 146121-22 2008-04-16	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION and GERIBERN ABELLA v. NLRC TINGA, J,
The settled rule in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings is that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in determining the legality of an employer's dismissal of an employee, and not even a preponderance of evidence is necessary as substantial evidence is considered sufficient. 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. Thus, substantial evidence is the least demanding in the hierarchy of evidence.[24]
	GR No. 164081 2008-04-16	MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILS. CORPORATION v. ROLANDO SIMON TINGA, J,
The settled rule in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings is that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in determining the legality of an employer's dismissal of an employee, and not even a preponderance of evidence is necessary as substantial evidence is considered sufficient.[13] 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.[14]
	GR No. 164081 2008-04-16	MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILS. CORPORATION v. ROLANDO SIMON TINGA, J,
The settled rule in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings is that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in determining the legality of an employer's dismissal of an employee, and not even a preponderance of evidence is necessary as substantial evidence is considered sufficient.[13] 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.[14]
	GR NO. 160618 2006-11-02	DENNIS D. SY v. METROPOLITAN BANK QUISUMBING, J.
Notably, the Court has also disallowed claims for retirement benefits in valid dismissal cases because the retirement plan itself precluded employees dismissed for cause from availing it.[27] Although no such prohibition in the retirement plan was alleged or proved in this case, we nevertheless deny petitioner's claims because his offenses, vis-á-vis his long years of service with the bank, reflect a regrettable lack of loyalty which he should have strengthened instead of betrayed.[28]
	GR NO. 154315 2005-05-09	PHILIPPINE PIZZA v. KIM M. BUNGABONG QUISUMBING, J.
In termination cases, the settled rule is that the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause rests on the employer.[20] But just as the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC is not bound to observe the strict technicalities enforced in courts of law, an employer is not required to prove the existence of just cause beyond reasonable doubt.[21] Termination of an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence is allowed so long as there is basis for the loss of trust or that the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct that rendered him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.[22] In this regard, the employer must establish clearly and convincingly by substantial evidence the facts and incidents upon which the loss of trust and confidence in the employee may fairly be made to rest.[23]