This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-06-27 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Again, we agree with the appellate court that DFPDC's conclusions are not supported by clear and convincing evidence to warrant the dismissal of respondent. In illegal dismissal cases, the employer is burdened to prove just cause for terminating the employment of its employee with clear and convincing evidence. This principle is designed to give flesh and blood to the guaranty of security of tenure granted by the Constitution to employees under the Labor Code.[34] In this case, petitioner failed to submit clear and convincing evidence of respondent's direct participation in the alleged fake condemnation proceedings. To be sure, unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of employers do not provide for legal justification for dismissing employees. In case of doubt, such cases should be resolved in favor of labor, pursuant to the social justice policy of labor laws and the Constitution.[35] | |||||
|
2011-09-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In Litton Mills, Inc. v. Sales,[46] we said that for such presumption to arise, it must be proven that: (a) the property was stolen; (b) it was committed recently; (c) that the stolen property was found in the possession of the accused; and (d) the accused is unable to explain his possession satisfactorily.[47] As mentioned above, all these were proven by the prosecution during trial. Thus, it is presumed that Lagat and Palalay had unlawfully taken Biag's tricycle. In People v. Bustinera,[48] this Court defined "unlawful taking," as follows: Unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is the taking of the motor vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things; it is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.[49] | |||||
|
2006-12-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The act by which a seaman deserts and abandons a ship or vessel, in which he had engaged to perform a voyage, before the expiration of his time, and without leave. By desertion, in maritime law, is meant, not a mere unauthorized absence from the ship, without leave, but an unauthorized absence from the ship with an intention not to return to her service; or as it is often expressed, animo non revertendi, that is, with an intention to desert.[19] (emphasis supplied) Hence, for a seaman to be considered as guilty of desertion, it is essential that there be evidence to prove that if he leaves the ship or vessel in which he had engaged to perform a voyage, he has the clear intention of abandoning his duty and of not returning to the ship or vessel. In the present case, however, petitioners failed to present clear and convincing proof to show that when private respondent jumped ship, he no longer had the intention of returning. The fact alone that he jumped off the ship where he was stationed, swam to shore and sought medical assistance for the injury he sustained is not a sufficient basis for petitioners to conclude that he had the intention of deserting his post. Settled is the rule that in termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause.[20] The case of the employer must stand or fall on its own merits and not on the weakness of the employee's defense.[21] In the present case, since petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving that private respondent is guilty of desertion, the Court finds no reason to depart from the conclusion of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC and the CA that private respondent's dismissal is illegal. | |||||
|
2005-09-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Time and again we have said that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer is burdened to prove just cause for terminating the employment of its employee with clear and convincing evidence.[20] The weakness of the employee's defense should not operate to relieve nor discharge the employer of its burden to prove its charges pursuant to the guaranty of tenure granted by the Constitution to employees under the Labor Code.[21] The case of the employer must stand or fall on its own merits. | |||||