This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| It should be remembered that in cases before administrative and quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, the degree of evidence required to be met is substantial evidence,[13] or such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[14] In a situation where the word of another party is taken against the other, as in this case, we must rely on substantial evidence because a party alleging a critical fact must duly substantiate and support its allegation.[15] | |||||
|
2015-08-05 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Abandonment connotes a deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to resume his employment.[54] Notably, "abandonment of work does not per se sever the employer-employee relationship. It is merely a form of neglect of duty, which is, in turn, a just cause for termination of employment. The operative act that will ultimately put an end to this relationship is the dismissal of the employee after complying with the procedure prescribed by law."[55] | |||||
|
2013-07-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| On the theory that the same is proof enough of the desire to return to work,[28] the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal more so when it includes a prayer for reinstatement has been held to be totally inconsistent with a charge of abandonment.[29] While it is true that Escudero's complaint prayed for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, Tan Brothers loses sight of the fact, however, that it had the burden of proving its own allegation that Escudero had abandoned her employment in July 2003. As allegation is not evidence, the rule has always been to the effect that a party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence[30] which has been construed to mean such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind will accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[31] Confronted with Escudero's assertion that she reported for work despite irregular payment of her salaries and was forced to stop doing so after her wages were not paid in May 2004, the record shows that Tan Brothers proffered nothing beyond bare allegations to prove that Escudero had abandoned her employment in July 2003. | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Thus, we ruled in De Paul/King Philip Customs Tailor v. NLRC that "a party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence. Any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand as it will offend due process."[14] | |||||
|
2005-02-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Time and again we have ruled that in illegal dismissal cases like the present one, the onus of proving that the employee was not dismissed or if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal, rests on the employer and failure to discharge the same would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal.[37] Thus, petitioners must not only rely on the weakness of respondents' evidence but must stand on the merits of their own defense. A party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence for any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand as it will offend due process.[38] Petitioners failed to discharge this burden. | |||||
|
2004-11-17 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment.[14] It is a form of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the employer.[15] For a valid finding of abandonment, these two factors should be present: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship, with the second as the more determinative factor which is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the employees has no more intention to work. The intent to discontinue the employment must be shown by clear proof that it was deliberate and unjustified.[16] | |||||