This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-10-17 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Explaining the notice requirements under Section 17, this Court held in Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Mira,[43] that :x x x under Section 17 of what is termed the Standard Format, the "two-notice rule" is indicated. An erring seaman is given a written notice of the charge against him and is afforded an opportunity to explain or defend himself. Should sanctions be imposed, then a written notice of penalty and the reasons for it shall be furnished the erring seafarer. It is only in the exceptional case of clear and existing danger to the safety of the crew or vessel that the required notices are dispensed with; but just the same, a complete report should be sent to the manning agency, supported by substantial evidence of the findings.[44] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2007-03-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| We find the petition meritorious. Private respondent was validly dismissed by petitioner. It must be borne in mind that the basic principle in termination cases is that the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and, therefore, was illegal.[16] For dismissal to be valid, the evidence must be substantial and not arbitrary and must be founded on clearly established facts.[17] We find that petitioner had discharged this burden. | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a valid and just cause. Failure to discharge this burden of proof substantially means that the dismissal was not justified and therefore, illegal.[14] Given petitioner's failure to discharge this burden, the Court sustains the finding of illegal dismissal vis-à-vis respondent Joselito Tinghil. | |||||