Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION v. VICENTE RANDY R. RAMIL

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 178184 2014-01-29	GRAND ASIAN SHIPPING LINES v. WILFREDO GALVEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
After examination of the evidence presented, however, we find that petitioners failed to substantiate adequately the charges of pilferage against respondents. "[T]he quantum of proof which the employer must discharge is substantial evidence. x x x Substantial evidence is 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."[53] Here, the mere filing of a formal charge, to our mind, does not automatically make the dismissal valid. Evidence submitted to support the charge should be evaluated to see if the degree of proof is met to justify respondents' termination. The affidavit executed by Montegrico simply contained the accusations of Abis that respondents committed pilferage, which allegations remain uncorroborated. "Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of employers do not provide for legal justification for dismissing employees."[54] The other bits of evidence were also inadequate to support the charge of pilferage. The findings made by GASLI's port captain and internal auditor and the resulting certification executed by De la Rama merely showed an overstatement of fuel consumption as revealed in the Engineer's Voyage Reports. The report of Jade Sea Land Inspection Services only declares the actual usage and amount of fuel consumed for a particular voyage. There are no other sufficient evidence to show that respondents participated in the commission of a serious misconduct or an offense against their employer.
	GR No. 193789 2012-09-19	ALEX Q. NARANJO v. BIOMEDICA HEALTH CARE VELASCO JR., J.
Finally, it cannot be overemphasized that in case of doubt, a case should be resolved in favor of labor. As aptly stated in Century Canning Corporation v. Ramil:[39]
	GR No. 171118 2012-09-10	PARK HOTEL v. MANOLO SORIANO PERALTA, J.
In view of the foregoing, respondents are entitled to the payment of full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to one month salary for every year of service.[43] The awards of separation pay and backwages are not mutually exclusive, and both may be given to respondents.[44]
	GR No. 195428 2012-08-29	JOMAR S. VERDADERO v. BARNEY AUTOLINES GROUP OF COMPANIES TRANSPORT MENDOZA, J.
Reinstatement and backwages are reliefs available to an illegally dismissed employee. Reinstatement restores the employee who was unjustly dismissed to the position from which he was removed, that is, to his status quo ante dismissal, while the grant of backwages allows the same employee to recover from the employer that which he had lost by way of wages as a result of his dismissal. These twin remedies reinstatement and payment of backwages make the dismissed employee whole who can then look forward to continued employment. Thus, do these two remedies give meaning and substance to the constitutional right of labor to security of tenure.[34]
	GR No. 174809 2012-06-27	DUTY FREE PHILIPPINES SERVICES v. MANOLITO Q. TRIA PERALTA, J.
Again, we agree with the appellate court that DFPDC's conclusions are not supported by clear and convincing evidence to warrant the dismissal of respondent. In illegal dismissal cases, the employer is burdened to prove just cause for terminating the employment of its employee with clear and convincing evidence. This principle is designed to give flesh and blood to the guaranty of security of tenure granted by the Constitution to employees under the Labor Code.[34] In this case, petitioner failed to submit clear and convincing evidence of respondent's direct participation in the alleged fake condemnation proceedings. To be sure, unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of employers do not provide for legal justification for dismissing employees. In case of doubt, such cases should be resolved in favor of labor, pursuant to the social justice policy of labor laws and the Constitution.[35]
	GR No. 174631 2011-10-19	JHORIZALDY UY v. CENTRO CERAMICA CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
However, the award of back wages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement should be modified. Under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay has been considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable.[20] Under the facts established, petitioner is entitled to the payment of full back wages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the date of his dismissal on February 19, 2002 up to the finality of this decision, and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to one month salary for every year of service, computed from the time of his engagement by respondents on March 21, 1999 up to the finality of this decision.[21]