Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FEDERICO M. LEDESMA v. NLRC HONS. RAUL T. AQUINO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 179226 2015-06-29	MA. SUSANA A. AWATIN v. AVANTGARDE SHIPPING CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
The law in protecting the rights of the employees, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer - there may be cases where the circumstances warrant favoring labor over the interests of management but never should the scale be so tilted as to result in an injustice to the employer.[13]
	GR No. 192406 2015-01-21	ONE SHIPPING CORP. v. IMELDA C. PEÑAFIEL PERALTA, J.
The law, in protecting the rights of the employees, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer - there may be cases where the circumstances warrant favoring labor over the interests of management but never should the scale be so tilted as to result in an injustice to the employer.[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. 179326 2013-07-31	LUCIANO P. CAÑEDO v. KAMPILAN SECURITY DEL CASTILLO, J.
In illegal dismissal cases, "[w]hile the employer bears the burden x x x to prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal from service."[34] The burden of proving the allegations rests upon the party alleging and the proof must be clear, positive and convincing.[35] Thus, in this case, it is incumbent upon petitioner to prove his claim of dismissal.
	GR No. 174173 2012-03-07	MA. MELISSA A. GALANG v. JULIA MALASUGUI PEREZ, J.
All three, Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA ruled that there was an employer-employee relationship between Galang and Malasugui. We do not see any reason to rule otherwise. This Court is not a trier of facts and does not routinely undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties for the factual findings of the labor officials who have acquired expertise in their own fields are accorded respect and even finality if affirmed on appeal to the Court of Appeals.[28]
	GR No. 169227 2010-07-05	PHILIPPINE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION MOVEMENT v. VIRGILIO E. PULGAR BRION, J.
While we recognize the rule that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause, in the present case, however, the facts and the evidence do not establish a prima facie case that the employee was dismissed from employment. Before the employer must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from service. Logically, if there is no dismissal, then there can be no question as to its legality or illegality.[19] Bare allegations of constructive dismissal, when uncorroborated by the evidence on record, cannot be given credence.[20]
	GR No. 175532 2010-04-19	ROMEO BASAY v. HACIENDA CONSOLACION DEL CASTILLO, J.
We are 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; however, it is likewise incumbent upon the employees that they should first establish by competent evidence the fact of their dismissal from employment.[17] The one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and the proof should be clear, positive and convincing.[18] In this case, aside from mere allegations, no evidence was proffered by the petitioners that they were dismissed from employment. The records are bereft of any indication that petitioners were prevented from returning to work or otherwise deprived of any work assignment by respondents.