This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-12-18 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Indeed, payroll sheets are inconclusive to disprove respondent's eight-hour-per-day work shift. Instead of payroll sheets, the time cards would have been more reliable. Petitioners, however, did not present the same. When a party has in its power to produce evidence that would overthrow the case made against it but fails to do so, the presumption arises that such evidence, if produced, would operate to its prejudice and support the case of the other party.[19] | |||||
|
2006-12-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the tape receipts presented by respondents showed that there were anomalies committed in the branches managed by the petitioners. On the principle of respondeat superior or command responsibility alone, petitioners may be held liable for negligence in the performance of their managerial duties, unless petitioners can positively show that they were not involved. Their position requires a high degree of responsibility that necessarily includes unearthing of fraudulent and irregular activities.[22] Their bare, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated denial of any participation in the cheating does not prove their innocence nor disprove their alleged guilt.[23] Additionally, some employees declared in their affidavits[24] that the cheating was actually the idea of the petitioners. | |||||
|
2005-12-16 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, for abandonment of work to be a just and valid grounds for dismissal, there must be deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to resume his employment. The burden of proof is on the employer to show an unequivocal intent on the part of the employee to discontinue employment. Moreover, the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with a charge of abandonment, for an employee who takes steps to protest his lay-off cannot by any logic be said to have abandoned his work.[14] To validly terminate the employment of Gusi, petitioner must comply with the twin requisites, namely: (a) the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided for in Article 282 of the Labor Code; and b) the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.[15] In termination cases, the burden of proving just and valid cause for dismissing an employee from his employment rests upon the employer, and the latter's failure to discharge that burden would result in a finding that the dismissal is unjustified.[16] To succeed in pleading abandonment as a valid ground for dismissal, the employer must prove (1) the intention of an employee to abandon his or her employment and (2) an overt act from which such intention may be inferred; i.e., the employee showed no desire to resume his work. Mere absence is not sufficient.[17] We thus affirm the findings of the appellate court that Gusi was illegally dismissed for failure of petitioner to prove that he abandoned his work. | |||||