This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-04-22 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In the present case, while the ponencia did not and could not expressly claim that the petitioners' case falls within the exceptions it oddly leaned on the exceptions to stretch its reading of the general rule. This legal maneuvering is most unwarranted for going against the basic principle in dismissal-of-employees cases, i.e., the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just cause and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal is not justified.[21] | |||||
|
2011-11-16 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The rule is long and well settled that, in illegal dismissal cases like the one at bench, the burden of proof is upon the employer to show that the employee's termination from service is for a just and valid cause.[16] The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not the weakness of that adduced by the employee,[17] in keeping with the principle that the scales of justice should be tilted in favor of the latter in case of doubt in the evidence presented by them.[18] Often described as more than a mere scintilla,[19] the quantum of proof is substantial evidence which is understood as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[20] Failure of the employer to discharge the foregoing onus would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal.[21] | |||||