Lawyerly

GR No. 169757

2011-11-23

PERALTA, J.

Hence, based on the finding above and the doctrine that "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,"[24] the Court of Appeals reversed the resolution of the NLRC and reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter with modification. Even if the Court of Appeals was remiss in not stating it in definite terms, it is implied that the Court of Appeals found that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding that no employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondent based on the evidence on record.

GR No. 156766

2009-04-16

ROSARIO A. GATUS v. QUALITY HOUSE

BRION, J.

We concur with the CA that there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that petitioner was dismissed for a just cause. We likewise conclude that no doubt exists in the evidence presented that would call for the application of the rule that doubts must be resolved in favor of the employee.[26]

GR No. 172933

2008-10-06

JESUS E. VERGARA v. HAMMONIA MARITIME SERVICES

BRION, J.

Finally, the petitioner contends that because there is doubt as to the accuracy of the medical opinion of the company-designated physician, the doubt should be resolved in his favor, citing Sy v. Court of Appeals,[21] as well as Article 4 of the Labor Code.[22]

GR NO. 160325

2007-10-04

ROQUE S. DUTERTE v. KINGSWOOD TRADING CO.

GARCIA, J.

All told, we rule and so hold that petitioner's dismissal did not comply with both the substantive and procedural aspects of due process. Clearly, his dismissal is tainted with invalidity.[17]

GR NO. 162833

2007-06-15

LAKAS SA INDUSTRIYA NG KAPATIRANG HALIGI NG ALYANSA-PINAGBUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWANG PROMO NG BURLINGAME v. BURLINGAME CORPORATION

QUISUMBING, J.

The "four-fold test" will show that respondent is the employer of petitioner's members. The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee's conduct. The most important element is the employer's control of the employee's conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it.[17]

GR NO. 159333

2006-07-31

ARSENIO T. MENDIOLA v. CA

PUNO, J.

Be that as it may, we hold that on the basis of the evidence, an employer-employee relationship is present in the case at bar. The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee's conduct. The most important element is the employer's control of the employee's conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it.[43]

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. 167462

2005-10-25

MANLY EXPRESS INC. v. ROMUALDO PAYONG

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

All told, Payong's dismissal did not comply with both the substantive and procedural aspects of due process. Clearly, his dismissal is tainted with invalidity.[12]

GR NO. 155279

2005-10-11

MICRO SALES OPERATION NETWORK v. NLRC

QUISUMBING, J.

Petitioners failed to present evidence of Basinillo's continuous contribution to SSS or uninterrupted pay slips to prove he remained under the company's employ. Hence, the complaint[23] for illegal dismissal filed by Basinillo stands and speaks for itself. Once a case for illegal dismissal is filed, the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for valid cause.[24] Petitioners failed to discharge this burden persuasively.

GR NO. 166550

2005-09-22

ROBERT C. CASOL v. PUREFOODS CORPORATION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Time and again we have said that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer is burdened to prove just cause for terminating the employment of its employee with clear and convincing evidence.[20] The weakness of the employee's defense should not operate to relieve nor discharge the employer of its burden to prove its charges pursuant to the guaranty of tenure granted by the Constitution to employees under the Labor Code.[21] The case of the employer must stand or fall on its own merits.

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]

GR No. 146621

2004-07-30

RENE P. VALIAO v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

For an employee's dismissal to be valid, (a) the dismissal must be for a valid cause and (b) the employee must be afforded due process.[7]

GR No. 158255

2004-07-08

MANILA WATER COMPANY v. HERMINIO D. PENA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Even the "four-fold test" will show that petitioner is the employer of private respondents. The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee's conduct. The most important element is the employer's control of the employee's conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it.[21]

	GR No. 169757 2011-11-23	CESAR C. LIRIO v. WILMER D. GENOVIA PERALTA, J.
Hence, based on the finding above and the doctrine that "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,"[24] the Court of Appeals reversed the resolution of the NLRC and reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter with modification. Even if the Court of Appeals was remiss in not stating it in definite terms, it is implied that the Court of Appeals found that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding that no employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondent based on the evidence on record.
	GR No. 156766 2009-04-16	ROSARIO A. GATUS v. QUALITY HOUSE BRION, J.
We concur with the CA that there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that petitioner was dismissed for a just cause. We likewise conclude that no doubt exists in the evidence presented that would call for the application of the rule that doubts must be resolved in favor of the employee.[26]
	GR No. 172933 2008-10-06	JESUS E. VERGARA v. HAMMONIA MARITIME SERVICES BRION, J.
Finally, the petitioner contends that because there is doubt as to the accuracy of the medical opinion of the company-designated physician, the doubt should be resolved in his favor, citing Sy v. Court of Appeals,[21] as well as Article 4 of the Labor Code.[22]
	GR NO. 160325 2007-10-04	ROQUE S. DUTERTE v. KINGSWOOD TRADING CO. GARCIA, J.
All told, we rule and so hold that petitioner's dismissal did not comply with both the substantive and procedural aspects of due process. Clearly, his dismissal is tainted with invalidity.[17]
	GR NO. 162833 2007-06-15	LAKAS SA INDUSTRIYA NG KAPATIRANG HALIGI NG ALYANSA-PINAGBUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWANG PROMO NG BURLINGAME v. BURLINGAME CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
The "four-fold test" will show that respondent is the employer of petitioner's members. The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee's conduct. The most important element is the employer's control of the employee's conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it.[17]
	GR NO. 159333 2006-07-31	ARSENIO T. MENDIOLA v. CA PUNO, J.
Be that as it may, we hold that on the basis of the evidence, an employer-employee relationship is present in the case at bar. The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee's conduct. The most important element is the employer's control of the employee's conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it.[43]
	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. 167462 2005-10-25	MANLY EXPRESS INC. v. ROMUALDO PAYONG YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
All told, Payong's dismissal did not comply with both the substantive and procedural aspects of due process. Clearly, his dismissal is tainted with invalidity.[12]
	GR NO. 155279 2005-10-11	MICRO SALES OPERATION NETWORK v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioners failed to present evidence of Basinillo's continuous contribution to SSS or uninterrupted pay slips to prove he remained under the company's employ. Hence, the complaint[23] for illegal dismissal filed by Basinillo stands and speaks for itself. Once a case for illegal dismissal is filed, the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for valid cause.[24] Petitioners failed to discharge this burden persuasively.
	GR NO. 166550 2005-09-22	ROBERT C. CASOL v. PUREFOODS CORPORATION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Time and again we have said that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer is burdened to prove just cause for terminating the employment of its employee with clear and convincing evidence.[20] The weakness of the employee's defense should not operate to relieve nor discharge the employer of its burden to prove its charges pursuant to the guaranty of tenure granted by the Constitution to employees under the Labor Code.[21] The case of the employer must stand or fall on its own merits.
	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]
	GR No. 146621 2004-07-30	RENE P. VALIAO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
For an employee's dismissal to be valid, (a) the dismissal must be for a valid cause and (b) the employee must be afforded due process.[7]
	GR No. 158255 2004-07-08	MANILA WATER COMPANY v. HERMINIO D. PENA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Even the "four-fold test" will show that petitioner is the employer of private respondents. The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee's conduct. The most important element is the employer's control of the employee's conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it.[21]

VICENTE SY v. CA