This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-07-31 |
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. | |||||
|
2011-06-27 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Constructive dismissal is quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, or because of a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay. It exists when there is a clear act of discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer which becomes unbearable for the employee to continue his employment. [32] Petitioner alleges that the real purpose of his transfer is to demote him to the rank of an instructor from being the Head for Education performing administrative functions. Petitioner further argues that his re-assignment will entail an indirect reduction of his salary or diminution of pay considering that no additional allowance will be given to cover for board and lodging expenses. He claims that such additional allowance was given in the past and therefore cannot be discontinued and withdrawn without violating the prohibition against non-diminution of benefits. | |||||
|
2009-07-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Respondents Mijares, Ferrera and Ruba counter that they were charged with violating Rep. Act No. 7279. If this law is inapplicable to the instant case, then they have no liability at all. They add that in the criminal case against them, the Office of the Ombudsman recognized that the SPFMPCI members were professional squatters.[19] They ratiocinate that as such, they should be summarily abated whether the subject land was urbanized or not. They also argue that even if Rep. Act No. 7279 was inapplicable, they enforced the demolition in good faith. On the other hand, respondent Querubin reiterates that the SPFMPCI members were professional squatters who are not entitled to protection under either Rep. Act No. 7279 or P.D. No. 1096. | |||||
|
2009-07-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Based on these laws, we find the demolition implemented by respondents in order. The SPFMPCI members occupied and introduced improvements in the parcel of land under no right, title or vested interest whatsoever. They never secured the prior written permission of the Secretary of National Defense as required by law. Although the land was initially placed under CARP coverage and they claimed to be farmer-beneficiaries, they were not included in the list of occupants/potential farmer-beneficiaries of PHILCOMSAT landholdings on file with the MARO and PARO.[28] In short, the SPFMPCI members never controverted the evidence presented by respondents that they (the SPFMPCI members) were illegal occupants of the land. Interestingly, even the Office of the Ombudsman recognized in the criminal case against respondents that the SPFMPCI members were professional squatters. | |||||
|
2009-07-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Respondents rightfully determined the occupation by the SPFMPCI members unauthorized (albeit on a different basis). As the Court of Appeals observed, respondents also presented a list of settlers who were affected by the demolition. The production of such list was made to support their claim that they notified the SPFMPCI members of the demolition and that a conference was held prior thereto.[33] Had respondents been impelled by ill motive, they would not have taken measures to properly identify who were legal occupants and who were squatters in the parcel of land in this case. Clearly, respondents acted within the limits of the law when they implemented the demolition. | |||||