Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FUNCTIONAL v. SAMUEL C. GRANFIL

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 169303 2015-02-11	PROTECTIVE MAXIMUM SECURITY AGENCY v. CELSO E. FUENTES LEONEN, J.
In this case, the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals did not find evidence that petitioner afforded respondent the opportunity to explain his failure or inability to report for work. They found that petitioner's allegation that respondent "simply vanished" did not discharge its burden of proving that respondent was dismissed for a just cause. In Functional, Inc. v. Granfil:[133]
	GR No. 179654 2014-09-22	HACIENDA LEDDY v. PAQUITO VILLEGAS PERALTA, J.
The rule is long and well settled that, in illegal dismissal cases like the one at bench, the burden of proof is upon the employer to show that the employee's termination from service is for a just and valid cause. The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not the weakness of that adduced by the employee, in keeping with the principle that the scales of justice should be tilted in favor of the latter in case of doubt in the evidence presented by them. Often described as more than a mere scintilla, the quantum of proof is substantial evidence which is understood as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[15]
	GR No. 167286 2014-02-05	INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL MANILA v. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In all cases involving termination of employment, the burden of proving the existence of the above just causes rests upon the employer.[66] The quantum of proof required in these cases is substantial evidence, that is, such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[67]
	GR No. 175170 2012-09-05	MISAMIS ORIENTAL II ELECTRIC SERVICE COOPERATIVE v. VIRGILIO M. CAGALAWAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
When there is doubt between the evidence submitted by the employer and that submitted by the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the employee.[47] This is consistent with the rule that an employer's cause could only succeed on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the employee's evidence.[48] Thus, MORESCO II cannot rely on the weakness of Ortiz's certification in order to give more credit to its own evidence. Self-serving and unsubstantiated declarations are not sufficient where the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact is substantial evidence, described as more than a mere scintilla.[49] "The evidence must be real and substantial, and not merely apparent."[50] MORESCO II has miserably failed to discharge the onus of proving the validity of Cagalawan's transfer.
	GR No. 185335 2012-06-13	PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE v. NLRC MENDOZA, J.
It must also be remembered that in illegal dismissal cases like the one at bench, the burden of proof is upon the employer to show that the employee's termination from service is for a just and valid cause.[51] The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not the weakness of that adduced by the employee,[52] in keeping with the principle that the scales of justice should be tilted in favor of the latter in case of doubt in the evidence presented by them.[53] Often described as more than a mere scintilla,[54] the quantum of proof is substantial evidence which is understood as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[55] Failure of the employer to discharge the foregoing onus would mean that the dismissal is not justified and, therefore, illegal.[56]