This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-01-30 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| By Decision[5] dated August 10, 2006, the appellate court affirmed the NLRC modified Decision, holding that there was no evidence to show that petitioner's employment was terminated, much less that the same was illegal. Citing CALS Poultry Supply v. Roco,[6] the appellate court held that petitioner failed to prove the fact of dismissal. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration having been denied by Resolution dated March 16, 2007, the present recourse was filed. | |||||
|
2008-09-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is also noteworthy that respondent failed to rebut petitioners' evidence establishing that he was not dismissed. The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. Aside from allegations, it also rests upon respondent to show that petitioners dismissed him from employment. It must be stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive and convincing.[18] The records are bereft of any indication that respondent was given any "walking papers" or even the slightest manifestation from petitioners that he was being terminated or prevented from returning to work. There is no illegal dismissal to speak of where the employee was not notified that he had been dismissed from his employment nor was he prevented from returning to his work.[19] | |||||