Lawyerly

GR No. 209418

2015-12-07

VELASCO JR., J.

Citing Machica v. Roosevelt Center Services, Inc.,[15] the Labor Arbiter ratiocinated that the burden of proving actual dismissal is upon the shoulders of the party alleging it; and that WM MFG and Golden Rock can only be burdened to justify a dismissal if it, indeed, took place. Unfortunately for Dalag, the Labor Arbiter did not find substantial evidence to sustain a finding that he was, in the first place, actually dismissed from employment. As observed by the Labor Arbiter:[16]

GR No. 212096

2015-10-14

NIGHTOWL WATCHMAN v. NESTOR LUMAHAN

BRION, J.

Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or the exercise of power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility; or in a manner so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[17] It is not sufficient that a tribunal, or a quasi-judicial agency of the government, in the exercise of its power, abused its discretion; such abuse must be grave.[18]

GR No. 207888

2014-06-09

DIONARTO Q. NOBLEJAS v. ITALIAN MARITIME ACADEMY PHILS.

MENDOZA, J.

Fair evidentiary rule dictates that before employers are burdened to prove that they did not commit illegal dismissal, it is incumbent upon the employee to first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his or her dismissal.[16] The Court is not unmindful of the rule in labor cases that the employer has the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. It is likewise incumbent upon the employees, however, that they should first establish by competent evidence the fact of their dismissal from employment.[17] It is an age-old rule that the one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and the proof should be clear, positive and convincing.[18] Mere allegation is not evidence. [19]

GR No. 178184

2014-01-29

GRAND ASIAN SHIPPING LINES v. WILFREDO GALVEZ

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no application when the employer denies having dismissed the employee.[58] The employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal[59] before shifting to the employer the burden of proving the validity of such dismissal.

GR No. 169227

2010-07-05

PHILIPPINE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION MOVEMENT v. VIRGILIO E. PULGAR

BRION, J.

As we said in Machica v. Roosevelt Services Center, Inc.:[21]

GR No. 168923

2008-11-28

BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN v. CA

NACHURA, J.

Proceeding now to the meat of the instant controversy, we find that the NLRC, except with respect to the aforementioned 149 claimants listed in Annex "B" of the September 2, 1991 Resolution, did not abuse its discretion, much more gravely, when it reconsidered its December 3, 2002 Decision and denied the claims of the rest of the petitioners. At this juncture, we emphasize that certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court will lie only when grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the labor tribunals is clearly shown.[37] It is incumbent, then, for petitioners to establish before the appellate court that the labor tribunal capriciously and whimsically exercised its judgment as would amount to lack of jurisdiction, or that it exercised its power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and that its abuse of discretion was so patent and gross as to constitute an evasion of positive duty enjoined or a refusal to act at all in contemplation of law.[38]

GR No. 150896

2008-08-28

PUREFOODS CORPORATION v. NAGKAKAISANG SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG PUREFOODS RANK-AND-FILE

NACHURA, J.

The Court reiterates that the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed with the CA will prosper only if there is clear showing of grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC.[20] It was incumbent, then, for petitioner to prove before the appellate court that the labor commission capriciously and whimsically exercised its judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction, or that it exercised its power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and that its abuse of discretion is so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[21] Here, as aforesaid, no such proof was adduced by petitioner. We, thus, declare that the NLRC ruling is not characterized by grave abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the same is also affirmed.

GR No. 171442

2008-06-17

ADING QUIZON v. LANIZA D. JUAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

However, despite the sufficiency of her complaint, respondent miserably failed to prove her allegations therein, most significantly the fact of her prior possession. Allegation is not tantamount to proof.[13] It must be stressed that one who alleged a fact has the burden of proving it.[14] And mere allegation without supporting evidence is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of prior physical possession.

GR No. 175960

2008-02-19

PADILLA MACHINE SHOP v. Petitioners

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

In Machica v. Roosevelt Services Center, Inc.,[12] we sustained the employer's denial as against the employees' categorical assertion of illegal dismissal. In that case, several employees who allegedly refused to sign a memorandum[13] from their employer, detailing the commission of alleged anomalies that resulted in the overpricing and overcharging of customers, filed an illegal dismissal case three days after receiving the said memorandum. They claimed that they were illegally dismissed and were told not to report for work anymore; the employer denied this and asserted that the workers (who appeared to be the suspects in the anomalies) were merely given three to five days off to decide whether or not to agree to share the loss suffered by it as a result of the anomalies. The Court, in ruling that there was no illegal dismissal, held that:The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; thus, petitioners were burdened to prove their allegation that respondents dismissed them from their employment. It must be stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive and convincing. The rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no application here because the respondents deny having dismissed the petitioners.

GR No. 175988

2007-08-24

MA. FININA E. VICENTE v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Hence, petitioner cannot take refuge in the argument that it is the employer who bears the burden of proof that the resignation is voluntary and not the product of coercion or intimidation. Having submitted a resignation letter, it is then incumbent upon her to prove that the resignation was not voluntary but was actually a case of constructive dismissal[25] with clear, positive, and convincing evidence.[26] Petitioner failed to substantiate her claim of constructive dismissal.

GR NO. 169570

2007-03-02

RICARDO PORTUGUEZ v. GSIS FAMILY BANK

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As we have explicitly ruled in Machica v. Roosevelt Service Center, Inc.[39]:The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; thus, petitioners were burdened to prove their allegation that respondents dismissed them from their employment. It must be stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive and convincing. The rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no application here because the respondents deny having dismissed the petitioners. (Emphases supplied.)

	GR No. 209418 2015-12-07	W.M. MANUFACTURING v. RICHARD R. DALAG VELASCO JR., J.
Citing Machica v. Roosevelt Center Services, Inc.,[15] the Labor Arbiter ratiocinated that the burden of proving actual dismissal is upon the shoulders of the party alleging it; and that WM MFG and Golden Rock can only be burdened to justify a dismissal if it, indeed, took place. Unfortunately for Dalag, the Labor Arbiter did not find substantial evidence to sustain a finding that he was, in the first place, actually dismissed from employment. As observed by the Labor Arbiter:[16]
	GR No. 212096 2015-10-14	NIGHTOWL WATCHMAN v. NESTOR LUMAHAN BRION, J.
Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or the exercise of power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility; or in a manner so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[17] It is not sufficient that a tribunal, or a quasi-judicial agency of the government, in the exercise of its power, abused its discretion; such abuse must be grave.[18]
	GR No. 207888 2014-06-09	DIONARTO Q. NOBLEJAS v. ITALIAN MARITIME ACADEMY PHILS. MENDOZA, J.
Fair evidentiary rule dictates that before employers are burdened to prove that they did not commit illegal dismissal, it is incumbent upon the employee to first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his or her dismissal.[16] The Court is not unmindful of the rule in labor cases that the employer has the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. It is likewise incumbent upon the employees, however, that they should first establish by competent evidence the fact of their dismissal from employment.[17] It is an age-old rule that the one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and the proof should be clear, positive and convincing.[18] Mere allegation is not evidence. [19]
	GR No. 178184 2014-01-29	GRAND ASIAN SHIPPING LINES v. WILFREDO GALVEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
The rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no application when the employer denies having dismissed the employee.[58] The employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal[59] before shifting to the employer the burden of proving the validity of such dismissal.
	GR No. 169227 2010-07-05	PHILIPPINE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION MOVEMENT v. VIRGILIO E. PULGAR BRION, J.
As we said in Machica v. Roosevelt Services Center, Inc.:[21]
	GR No. 168923 2008-11-28	BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN v. CA NACHURA, J.
Proceeding now to the meat of the instant controversy, we find that the NLRC, except with respect to the aforementioned 149 claimants listed in Annex "B" of the September 2, 1991 Resolution, did not abuse its discretion, much more gravely, when it reconsidered its December 3, 2002 Decision and denied the claims of the rest of the petitioners. At this juncture, we emphasize that certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court will lie only when grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the labor tribunals is clearly shown.[37] It is incumbent, then, for petitioners to establish before the appellate court that the labor tribunal capriciously and whimsically exercised its judgment as would amount to lack of jurisdiction, or that it exercised its power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and that its abuse of discretion was so patent and gross as to constitute an evasion of positive duty enjoined or a refusal to act at all in contemplation of law.[38]
	GR No. 150896 2008-08-28	PUREFOODS CORPORATION v. NAGKAKAISANG SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG PUREFOODS RANK-AND-FILE NACHURA, J.
The Court reiterates that the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed with the CA will prosper only if there is clear showing of grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC.[20] It was incumbent, then, for petitioner to prove before the appellate court that the labor commission capriciously and whimsically exercised its judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction, or that it exercised its power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and that its abuse of discretion is so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[21] Here, as aforesaid, no such proof was adduced by petitioner. We, thus, declare that the NLRC ruling is not characterized by grave abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the same is also affirmed.
	GR No. 171442 2008-06-17	ADING QUIZON v. LANIZA D. JUAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
However, despite the sufficiency of her complaint, respondent miserably failed to prove her allegations therein, most significantly the fact of her prior possession. Allegation is not tantamount to proof.[13] It must be stressed that one who alleged a fact has the burden of proving it.[14] And mere allegation without supporting evidence is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of prior physical possession.
	GR No. 175960 2008-02-19	PADILLA MACHINE SHOP v. Petitioners YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In Machica v. Roosevelt Services Center, Inc.,[12] we sustained the employer's denial as against the employees' categorical assertion of illegal dismissal. In that case, several employees who allegedly refused to sign a memorandum[13] from their employer, detailing the commission of alleged anomalies that resulted in the overpricing and overcharging of customers, filed an illegal dismissal case three days after receiving the said memorandum. They claimed that they were illegally dismissed and were told not to report for work anymore; the employer denied this and asserted that the workers (who appeared to be the suspects in the anomalies) were merely given three to five days off to decide whether or not to agree to share the loss suffered by it as a result of the anomalies. The Court, in ruling that there was no illegal dismissal, held that:The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; thus, petitioners were burdened to prove their allegation that respondents dismissed them from their employment. It must be stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive and convincing. The rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no application here because the respondents deny having dismissed the petitioners.
	GR No. 175988 2007-08-24	MA. FININA E. VICENTE v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Hence, petitioner cannot take refuge in the argument that it is the employer who bears the burden of proof that the resignation is voluntary and not the product of coercion or intimidation. Having submitted a resignation letter, it is then incumbent upon her to prove that the resignation was not voluntary but was actually a case of constructive dismissal[25] with clear, positive, and convincing evidence.[26] Petitioner failed to substantiate her claim of constructive dismissal.
	GR NO. 169570 2007-03-02	RICARDO PORTUGUEZ v. GSIS FAMILY BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As we have explicitly ruled in Machica v. Roosevelt Service Center, Inc.[39]:The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; thus, petitioners were burdened to prove their allegation that respondents dismissed them from their employment. It must be stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive and convincing. The rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no application here because the respondents deny having dismissed the petitioners. (Emphases supplied.)

LIGAYA R. MACHICA v. ROOSEVELT SERVICES CENTER