Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EXODUS INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. GUILLERMO BISCOCHO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 194686 2015-09-23	TRI-C GENERAL SERVICES v. NOLASCO B. MATUTO PERALTA, J.
The Court is not unmindful of the rule in labor cases that the employer has the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. However, it is likewise incumbent upon the employees that they should first establish by competent evidence the fact of their dismissal from employment.[33] As an allegation is not evidence, it is elementary that a party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence.[34] It was also stressed that the evidence to prove the fact of dismissal must be clear, positive and convincing.[35]
	GR No. 179326 2013-07-31	LUCIANO P. CAÑEDO v. KAMPILAN SECURITY DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioner relies on the word "terminated" as used in the June 25, 2003 Certification issued him by respondent Arquiza and argues that the same is a clear indication that he was dismissed from service. We are, however, not persuaded. Petitioner cannot simply rely on this piece of document since the fact of dismissal must be evidenced by positive and overt acts of an employer indicating an intention to dismiss.[36] Here, aside from this single document, petitioner proffered no other evidence showing that he was dismissed from employment. While it is true that he was not allowed to report for work after the period of his suspension expired, the same was due to NPC's request for his replacement as NPC was no longer interested in his services. And as correctly argued by respondents, petitioner from that point onward is not considered dismissed but merely on a floating status. "Such a 'floating status' is lawful and not unusual for security guards employed in security agencies as their assignments primarily depend on the contracts entered into by the agency with third parties."[37]
	GR No. 192394 2013-07-03	ROY D. PASOS v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Petitioner is also entitled to attorney's fees in the amount of ten percent (10%) of his total monetary award, having been forced to litigate in order to seek redress of his grievances, as provided in Article 111 of the Labor Code, as amended, and following this Court's pronouncement in Exodus International Construction Corporation v. Biscocho.[41]
	GR No. 182957 2013-06-13	ST. JOSEPH ACADEMY OF VALENZUELA FACULTY ASSOCIATION -FUR CHAPTER-TUCP v. VS.ST. JOSEPH ACADEMY OF VALENZUELA REYES, J.
Generally, the finding of illegal dismissal entitles an employee to the twin remedies of reinstatement and payment of backwages.[22] Article 279 of the Labor Code states, in part, that an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. These twin remedies reinstatement and payment of backwages make the dismissed employee whole who can then look forward to continued employment.[23]
	GR No. 191281 2012-12-05	BEST WEAR GARMENTS v. ADELAIDA B. DE LEMOS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Indeed, there was no evidence that respondents were dismissed from employment. In fact, petitioners expressed willingness to accept them back to work. There being no termination of employment by the employer, the award of backwages cannot be sustained. It is well settled that backwages may be granted only when there is a finding of illegal dismissal.[20]In cases where there is no evidence of dismissal, the remedy is reinstatement but without backwages.[21]
	GR No. 185829 2012-04-25	ARMANDO ALILING v. JOSE B. FELICIANO VELASCO JR., J.
Petitioner Aliling is also entitled to attorney's fees in the amount of ten percent (10%) of his total monetary award, having been forced to litigate in order to seek redress of his grievances, pursuant to Article 111 of the Labor Code and following our ruling in Exodus International Construction Corporation v. Biscocho,[53] to wit: In Rutaquio v. National Labor Relations Commission, this Court held that:
	GR No. 168120 2012-01-25	MANSION PRINTING CENTER v. DIOSDADO BITARA PEREZ, J.
[67] Exodus International Construction Corporation v. Guillermo Biscocho, G.R. No. 166109, 23 February 2011.
	GR No. 191053 2011-11-28	MARIO B. DIMAGAN v. DACWORKS UNITED PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
"Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment."[27] To constitute abandonment of work, two elements must concur: "(1) the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt act."[28] The employer bears the burden of proof to show the deliberate and unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning.[29]