This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-06-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| A contractor is presumed to be a labor-only contractor, unless it proves that it has the substantial capital, investment, tools and the like. However, where the principal is the one claiming that the contractor is a legitimate contractor, the burden of proving the supposed status of the contractor rests on the principal.[1] | |||||
|
2013-07-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is, on the other hand, doctrinal that abandonment is a matter of intention[32] and cannot, for said reason, be lightly inferred, much less legally presumed from certain equivocal acts.[33] Viewed in the light of Escudero's persistence in reporting for work despite the irregular payment of her salaries starting July 2003, we find that her subsequent failure to do so as a consequence of Tan Brothers' non-payment of her salaries in May 2004 is hardly evincive of an intention to abandon her employment. Indeed, mere absence or failure to report for work, even after a notice to return work has been served, is not enough to amount to an abandonment of employment.[34] Considering that a notice directing Escudero to return to work was not even issued in the premises, we find that the CA committed no reversible error in ruling out Tan Brother's defense of abandonment. | |||||