This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2012-07-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is notable that under the Rules Implementing the Labor Code and as held in Tan v. Lagrama,[17] every employer is required to pay his employees by means of a payroll, which should show in each case, among others, the employee's rate of pay, deductions made from such pay, and the amounts actually paid to the employee. Yet, petitioner did not present the payroll of its employees to bolster its insistence of respondent not being its employee. | |||||
|
2005-06-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| For purposes of determining the existence of employer-employee relationship, the Court has consistently adhered to the four-fold test, namely: (1) whether the alleged employer has the power of selection and engagement of an employee; (2) whether he has control of the employee with respect to the means and methods by which work is to be accomplished; (3) whether he has the power to dismiss; and (4) whether the employee was paid wages.[57] Of the four, the control test is the most important element. | |||||
|
2005-04-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| BSMI admitted that it employed the respondents, giving the said retired employees some degree of priority merely because of their work experience with the petitioner, and in order to have a smooth transition of operations.[44] In accordance with its own recruitment policies, the respondents were made to sign applications for employment, accepting the condition that they were hired by BSMI as probationary employees only. Not being contrary to law, morals, good custom, public policy and public order, these employment contracts, which the parties are bound are considered valid. Unfortunately, after a study and evaluation of its personnel organization, BSMI was impelled to terminate the services of the respondents on the ground of redundancy. This right to hire and fire is another element of the employer-employee relationship[45] which actually existed between the respondents and BSMI, and not with Wack Wack. | |||||
|
2005-04-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The primary standard for determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer.[28] There is no doubt that the respondents were performing work necessary and desirable in the usual trade or business of an employer. Hence, they can properly be classified as regular employees. | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
DAVIDE, JR., C.J. |
||||
| However, it is long settled that it is the employer who has the burden of proving the legality of the employee's dismissal.[18] For the respondent to be validly dismissed from the service, the petitioner bank must prove by substantial evidence the bases of the breach of trust or serious misconduct levelled against him. Substantial evidence has been defined as "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion."[19] It is such amount of evidence as to induce a belief that the employee is responsible for misconduct and that participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by the job.[20] | |||||
|
2004-01-29 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| It is a settled doctrine that "the employer has the burden of proving the lawfulness of his employee's dismissal. The validity of the charge must be clearly established in a manner consistent with due process. The Implementing Rules of the Labor Code provide that no worker shall be dismissed except for a just or authorized cause provided by law and after due process. This provision has two aspects: (1) the legality of the act of dismissal, that is, dismissal based on the grounds provided by Article 282 of the Labor Code, and (2) the legality in the manner of dismissal. The illegality of the act of dismissal constitutes discharge without just cause, while illegality in the manner of dismissal is dismissal without due process."[11] Clearly, petitioner failed to discharge its burden. | |||||