This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-04-07 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Loss of trust and confidence is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust and confidence. The employee must be invested with confidence on delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, care and protection of the employer's property and funds.[18] "[W]ith respect to rank-and-file personnel, loss of trust and confidence as ground for valid dismissal requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in question, and that mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will not be sufficient."[19] | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Upon examination of the documents presented by the parties, we are convinced that the finding of facts on which the conclusions of the Commission and the Labor Arbiter were based was actually supported by substantial evidence "that amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise."[36] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2011-01-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Thus, the Court has ruled in Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Agad[48] that: In termination cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer to show that the dismissal is for just cause. When there is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for the termination of employment, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal and the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. | |||||