This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
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. | |||||