This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Under this construct, abandonment is a defense available against the employee who alleges a dismissal. Thus, for the employer "to successfully invoke abandonment, whether as a ground for dismissing an employee or as a defense, the employer bears the burden of proving the employee's unjustified refusal to resume his employment."[21] This burden, of course, proceeds from the general rule that places the burden on the employer to prove the validity of the dismissal. | |||||
|
2015-09-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, we review the legal errors that the CA may have committed in the assailed decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error undertaken in an original certiorari action. In reviewing the legal correctness of the CA decision in a labor case made under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, this Court examines the decision in the context that the CA determined the presence or the absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it and not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision, on the merits of the case, was correct.[28] | |||||
|
2015-09-09 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Courts generally accord great respect and finality to factual findings of administrative agencies, like labor tribunals, in the exercise of their quasi-judicial function. However, this doctrine espousing comity to administrative findings of facts are not infallible and cannot preclude the courts from reviewing and, when proper, disregarding these findings of facts when shown that the administrative body committed grave abuse of discretion.[40] | |||||