This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-10-07 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "Generally, the Court does not review factual questions, primarily because the Court is not a trier of facts."[24] "However, in instances where the judgment was premised on a misapprehension of facts or when certain material facts and circumstances were overlooked and which, if taken into account, would alter the result of the case, a review of the facts by this Court is warranted."[25] | |||||
|
2015-06-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In regard to the above discussion, the issue of whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondents is essentially a question of fact.[22] The factors that determine the issue include who has the power to select the employee, who pays the employee's wages, who has the power to dismiss the employee, and who exercises control of the methods and results by which the work of the employee is accomplished.[23] Although no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of the relationship, and any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted, a finding that the relationship exists must nonetheless rest on substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[24] | |||||
|
2014-09-24 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Standards[25] have been laid down by the Court in order to prevent its abuse by an employer, to wit: (1) That retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses which, if already incurred, are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer; (2) That the employer served written notice both to the employees and to the Department of Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; (3) That the employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (½) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher; (4) That the employer exercises its prerogative to retrench employees in good faith for the advancement of its interest and not to defeat or circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure; and (5) That the employer used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees, such as status, efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers.[26] (Emphasis ours) | |||||
|
2013-08-14 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In termination cases either by retrenchment or closure, the burden of proving that the termination of services is for a valid or authorized cause rests upon the employer.[17] Not every loss incurred or expected to be incurred by an employer can justify retrenchment. The employer must prove, among others, that the losses are substantial and that the retrenchment is reasonably necessary to avert such losses.[18] And to repeat, in closures, the bona fides of the employer must be proven. | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Pakyaw workers are considered employees for as long as their employers exercise control over them. In Legend Hotel Manila v. Realuyo,[68] the Court held that "the power of the employer to control the work of the employee is considered the most significant determinant of the existence of an employer-employee relationship. This is the so-called control test and is premised on whether the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control both the end achieved and the manner and means used to achieve that end." It should be remembered that the control test merely calls for the existence of the right to control, and not necessarily the exercise thereof.[69] It is not essential that the employer actually supervises the performance of duties by the employee. It is enough that the former has a right to wield the power.[70] | |||||