This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-02-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Triple Eight Integrated Services, Inc. v. NLRC,[23] the Court held that the requirement for a medical certificate under Article 284 of the Labor Code cannot be dispensed with; otherwise, it would sanction the unilateral and arbitrary determination by the employer of the gravity or extent of the employee's illness and, thus, defeat the public policy on the protection of labor. In the present case, there was no showing that prior to terminating respondent's employment, petitioner secured the required certification from a competent public health authority that the disease he suffered was of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within six months despite proper medical treatment, pursuant to Section 8, Rule I, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. | |||||
|
2011-11-16 |
PEREZ, 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.[16] The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not the weakness of that adduced by the employee,[17] 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.[18] Often described as more than a mere scintilla,[19] 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.[20] Failure of the employer to discharge the foregoing onus would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal.[21] | |||||
|
2009-03-24 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioner also appealed[16] to the NLRC on the sole issue that the LA erred in not applying the ruling of the Court in Triple Integrated Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission[17] that in case of illegal dismissal, OFWs are entitled to their salaries for the unexpired portion of their contracts.[18] | |||||
|
2006-12-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court does not agree. The provisions of the Constitution as well as the Labor Code which afford protection to labor apply to Filipino employees whether working within the Philippines or abroad. Moreover, the principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract is made) governs in this jurisdiction.[27] In the present case, it is not disputed that the Contract of Employment entered into by and between petitioners and private respondent was executed here in the Philippines with the approval of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). Hence, the Labor Code together with its implementing rules and regulations and other laws affecting labor apply in this case.[28] Accordingly, as to the requirement of notice and hearing in the case of a seafarer, the Court has already ruled in a number of cases that before a seaman can be dismissed and discharged from the vessel, it is required that he be given a written notice regarding the charges against him and that he be afforded a formal investigation where he could defend himself personally or through a representative.[29] Hence, the employer should strictly comply with the twin requirements of notice and hearing without regard to the nature and situs of employment or the nationality of the employer. Petitioners failed to comply with these twin requirements. | |||||