This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-11-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The presumption is that a contractor is a labor-only contractor unless such contractor overcomes the burden of proving that it has substantial capital, investment, tools and the like.[28] The employees, in this case, private respondents, should not be expected to prove the negative fact that the contractor does not have substantial capital, investment and tools to engage in job-contracting.[29] | |||||
|
2005-05-16 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| There is no denying that it is within the NLRC's competence, as an appellate agency reviewing decisions of Labor Arbiters, to disagree with and set aside the latter's findings.[16] But it stands to reason that the NLRC should state an acceptable cause therefore, otherwise it would be a whimsical, capricious, oppressive, illogical, unreasonable exercise of quasi-judicial prerogative, subject to invalidation by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.[17] And when the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are diametrically opposed and this disparity of findings is called into question, there is, necessarily, a re-examination of the factual findings to ascertain which opinion should be sustained.[18] As ruled in Asuncion v. NLRC,[19] | |||||