Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO.

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 173774 2012-01-30	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. MA. LUISA BELTRAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
It should be emphasized at this point that the burden of proving the legality of an employee's dismissal lies with the employer.[26] "Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of employers do not provide legal justification for dismissing employees."[27] "[M]ere conjectures cannot work to deprive employees of their means of livelihood."[28] To begin with, MERALCO cannot claim or conclude that Beltran misappropriated the money based on mere suspicion. The NLRC thus erred in concluding that Beltran made use of the money from the mere fact that she took a leave of absence after having been reminded of the unremitted funds. And even if Beltran delayed handing over the funds to the company, MERALCO still has the burden of proof to show clearly that such act of negligence is sufficient to justify termination from employment. Moreover, we find that Beltran's delay does not clearly and convincingly establish a willful breach on her part, that is, which is done "intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without any justifiable excuse." True, the reasons Beltran proffered for her delay in remitting the cash payment are mere allegations without any concrete proof. Nonetheless, we emphasize that as the employer, the burden still lies on MERALCO to provide clear and convincing facts upon which the alleged loss of confidence is to be made to rest.
	GR No. 185251 2009-10-02	RAUL G. LOCSIN v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY VELASCO JR., J.
In Tongko v. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (Phils.) Inc.,[11] we reiterated the oft repeated rule that control is the most important element in the determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship:In the determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists between two parties, this Court applies the four-fold test to determine the existence of the elements of such relationship. In Pacific Consultants International Asia, Inc. v. Schonfeld, the Court set out the elements of an employer-employee relationship, thus: