Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TAN BROTHERS CORPORATION OF BASILAN CITY THROUGH ITS OWNER v. EDNA R. ESCUDERO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 194686 2015-09-23	TRI-C GENERAL SERVICES v. NOLASCO B. MATUTO PERALTA, J.
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. However, it is likewise incumbent upon the employees that they should first establish by competent evidence the fact of their dismissal from employment.[33] As an allegation is not evidence, it is elementary that a party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence.[34] It was also stressed that the evidence to prove the fact of dismissal must be clear, positive and convincing.[35]
	GR No. 198675 2015-09-23	ILAW BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA v. NESTLE PHILIPPINES PERALTA, J.
It is settled that the purpose of the law (or rule) in prescribing time limitations for enforcing judgments or actions is to prevent obligors from sleeping on their rights.[15] In this regard, petitioners insist that they are vigilant in exercising their right to pursue payment of the monetary awards in their favor. However, a careful review of the records at hand would show that petitioners failed to prove their allegation. The only evidence presented to show that petitioners ever demanded payment was a letter dated May 22, 2008, signed by one Atty. Calderon, representing herein individual petitioners, addressed to respondent company and seeking proof that the company has indeed complied with the provisions of the subject MOA.[16] Considering that the NLRC Decision approving the MOA was issued as early as October 12, 1998, the letter from petitioners' counsel, which was dated almost ten years after the issuance of the NLRC Decision, can hardly be considered as evidence of vigilance on the part of petitioners. No proof was ever presented showing that petitioners did not sleep on their rights. Despite their claims to the contrary, the records at hand are bereft of any evidence to establish that petitioners exerted any effort to enforce their rights under the subject MOA, either individually, through their union or their counsel. It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation, that mere allegation is not evidence.[17] Indeed, as allegation is not evidence, the rule has always been to the effect that a party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence which has been construed to mean such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind will accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[18] Unfortunately, petitioners failed in this respect.
	GR No. 184397 2015-09-09	ROSALINDA G. PAREDES v. FEED CHILDREN PHILIPPINES PERALTA, J.
Case law holds that constructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee.[48] The test is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances.[49]
	GR No. 202645 2015-08-05	FORTUNATO R. BARON v. EPE TRANSPORT PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Abandonment connotes a deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to resume his employment.[54] Notably, "abandonment of work does not per se sever the employer-employee relationship. It is merely a form of neglect of duty, which is, in turn, a just cause for termination of employment. The operative act that will ultimately put an end to this relationship is the dismissal of the employee after complying with the procedure prescribed by law."[55]
	GR No. 209822 2015-07-08	DIONISIO DACLES v. MILLENIUM ERECTORS CORPORATION PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
On the other hand, the records are bereft of any substantial evidence to support petitioner's claim that he had been continuously rehired by respondent as a mason for 22 years[45] as to accord him with a regular employment status. Petitioner proffered a bare and self-serving claim that he has been employed by respondent since 1998.[46] It is well-settled that a party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence as allegation is not evidence.[47] Ultimately, nothing on record evinces the existence of an employer-employee relationship[48] between him and respondent prior to his employment as a project employee in the NECC Project.