This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-01-16 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It is incumbent upon Spouses Viloria to prove that CAI exercised control or supervision over Mager by preponderant evidence. The existence of control or supervision cannot be presumed and CAI is under no obligation to prove its denial or nugatory assertion. Citing Belen v. Belen,[27] this Court ruled in Jayme v. Apostol,[28] that: In Belen v. Belen, this Court ruled that it was enough for defendant to deny an alleged employment relationship. The defendant is under no obligation to prove the negative averment. This Court said: | |||||