This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-12-09 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Hence, in the absence of any showing of an overt or positive act to establish that respondents had dismissed Tatel, the latter's claim of illegal dismissal cannot be sustained.[60] Conversely, respondents acted in good faith when they offered another posting to Tatel through the duly-received November 26, 2009 Memorandum. The Court notes that the Memorandum was sent during the pendency of the underpayment case that Tatel had, by then, lodged against respondents, thereby strengthening the stance of good faith in favor of respondents. In this regard, it is manifestly unfair and unacceptable to immediately declare the mere lapse of the six-month period of "floating status" as a case of constructive dismissal without looking into the peculiar circumstances that resulted in the security guard's failure to assume another post,[61] as in this case. Clearly, Tatel's lack of an assignment for the six-month period cannot be attributed to respondents. | |||||
|
2015-12-09 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| To constitute abandonment of work, two (2) elements must be present: first, the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and second, there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt act.[63] The burden to prove whether the employee abandoned his or her work rests on the employer.[64] | |||||
|
2015-12-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We cannot subscribe to petitioner's contrary view that Dalag was never terminated, legally or otherwise, and that it was he who abandoned his employment. On this point, the teaching in MZR Industries v. Colambot[70] is apropos:In a number of cases, this Court consistently held that to constitute abandonment of work, two elements must be present: first, the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and second, there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt act. | |||||
|
2015-09-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the facts and the evidence do not establish a prima facie case that respondents were dismissed from employment. Aside from their mere assertion and joint affidavit, respondents failed to adduce corroborative and competent evidence to substantiate their conclusion that they were dismissed from employment. Respondents did not even present the alleged notice of termination of their employment. Therefore, in the absence of any showing of an overt or positive act proving that petitioner had dismissed respondents, the latter's claim of illegal dismissal cannot be sustained as the same would be self-serving, conjectural and of no probative value.[36] | |||||
|
2014-07-28 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In termination cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just cause.[17] The one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; thus, FLPE should prove its allegation that it terminated respondents for a valid and just cause. It must be stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive, and convincing.[18] When there is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for the termination of employment, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal.[19] Unfortunately, FLPE miserably failed to discharge this burden. To rule otherwise and simply allow the presumption as to the existence and dissemination of the supposed company policy would lead to a proliferation of fabricated notices, and entice further abuse by unscrupulous persons. Workers could then be arbitrarily terminated without much of an effort, running afoul of the State's clear duty to show compassion and afford the utmost protection to laborers. | |||||
|
2014-06-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, we are unprepared to declare NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-05-05003-07 to be closed and terminated because the mere absence or failure to report for work, even after notice to return, does not necessarily amount to abandonment. Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed from certain equivocal acts. To constitute abandonment, there must be clear proof of deliberate and unjustified intent to sever the employer-employee relationship. The operative act is still the employee's ultimate act of putting an end to his employment.[47] | |||||