This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-11-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| To recall, it is doctrinally entrenched that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving with clear, accurate, consistent, and convincing evidence that the dismissal was valid.[30] It is therefore the employer which must satisfactorily show that it was not in a dominant position of advantage in dealing with its prospective employee. Thus, in Philips Semiconductors (Phils.), Inc. v. Fadriquela,[31] this Court rejected the employer's insistence on the application of the Brent doctrine when the sole justification of the fixed terms is to respond to temporary albeit frequent need of such workers: We reject the petitioner's submission that it resorted to hiring employees for fixed terms to augment or supplement its regular employment "for the duration of peak loads" during short-term surges to respond to cyclical demands; hence, it may hire and retire workers on fixed terms, ad infinitum, depending upon the needs of its customers, domestic and international. Under the petitioner's submission, any worker hired by it for fixed terms of months or years can never attain regular employment status. x x x. | |||||
|
2013-01-16 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Further, no less than the Labor Code directs labor officials to use reasonable means to ascertain the facts speedily and objectively, with little regard to technicalities or formalities and Rule VII, Section 10 of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC provides that technical rules are not binding. Indeed, the application of technical rules or procedure may be relaxed in labor cases to serve the demand of substantial justice.[16] | |||||