This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-06-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Fair evidentiary rule dictates that before employers are burdened to prove that they did not commit illegal dismissal, it is incumbent upon the employee to first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his or her dismissal.[16] 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. It is likewise incumbent upon the employees, however, that they should first establish by competent evidence the fact of their dismissal from employment.[17] It is an age-old rule that the one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and the proof should be clear, positive and convincing.[18] Mere allegation is not evidence. [19] | |||||
|
2014-03-12 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The issue of whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists in a given case is essentially a question of fact. As a rule, this Court is not a trier of facts and this applies with greater force in labor cases.[22] Only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court.[23] This rule is not absolute, however, and admits of exceptions. For one, the Court may look into factual issues in labor cases when the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA are conflicting.[24] Here, the findings of the NLRC differed from those of the Labor Arbiter and the CA, which compels the Court's exercise of its authority to review and pass upon the evidence presented and to draw its own conclusions therefrom.[25] | |||||
|
2013-02-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The invocation of the rule is misplaced, however, because the rule speaks of a situation where the person who made the entries is dead or unable to testify, which was not the situation here. Regardless, we have to point out that entries made in the course of business enjoy the presumption of regularity.[53] If properly authenticated, the entries serve as evidence of the status of the account of the petitioners. In Land Bank v. Monet's Export and Manufacturing Corporation,[54] the Court has explained that such entries are accorded unusual reliability because their regularity and continuity are calculated to discipline record keepers in the habit of precision; and that if the entries are financial, the records are routinely balanced and audited; hence, in actual experience, the whole of the business world function in reliance of such kind of records. | |||||
|
2009-12-14 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As previously mentioned, respondent's predecessor, Juan Mari, had declared the disputed realty[24] for tax purposes as early as 1916. The tax declarations show that he had a two storey house on the realty. He also planted fruit bearing trees and bamboos thereon. The records[25] also show that the 897-square meter property had a bamboo fence along its perimeter. All these circumstances clearly show that Juan Mari was in possession of subject realty in the concept of owner, publicly and peacefully since 1916 or long before petitioners entered the disputed realty sometime in 1965. | |||||