Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ESTER M. ASUNCION v. NLRC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 157680 2008-10-08	EQUIPMENT TECHNICAL SERVICES OR JOSEPH JAMES DEQUITO v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
Based on the foregoing criteria, the factual findings of the labor arbiter on the regular nature of private respondents' employment, juxtaposed with ETS' failure to support its "project-workers theory," impel us to dismiss the instant petition. This is as it should be for, to paraphrase Asuncion v. NLRC, if doubt exists between the evidence of the employers and the employees, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter--the employers must adequately show rationally adequate evidence that their case is preponderantly superior.[20]
	GR Nos. 164684-85 2005-11-11	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. ANTONIO Q. TIAMSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
The ruling in Asuncion v. National Labor Relations Commission[43] is instructive on how such document should be treated. In that case, the employer submitted a handwritten listing and computer printouts to establish the charges against the employee. The handwritten listing was not signed, and while there was a computer-generated listing, the entries of time and other annotations therein were also handwritten and unsigned. The Court ruled that the handwritten listing and unsigned computer printouts were unauthenticated, hence, unreliable. Mere self-serving evidence (of which the listing and printouts are of that nature) should be rejected as evidence without any rational probative value even in administrative proceedings.[44]
	GR NO. 155279 2005-10-11	MICRO SALES OPERATION NETWORK v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
In the case of Basinillo, petitioners rely solely on his purported unsworn statement alleging he was never dismissed. However, not having been sworn to, the said document has no probative value. While the Court is liberal in the conduct of proceedings for labor cases, proof of authenticity as a condition for the admission of documents is nonetheless required.[22]
	GR No. 151981 2003-12-01	DIAMOND MOTORS CORPORATION v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
A disharmony between the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission opens the door to a review thereof by this Court.[7] Factual findings of administrative agencies are not infallible and will be set aside when they fail the test of arbitrariness. Moreover, when the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission contradict those of the labor arbiter, this Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, may look into the records of the case and reexamine the questioned findings.[8]