This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-12-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Anent the nationality of the other joint venture partners, the Court defers to the findings of the COMELEC and the BAC, and finds sufficient their declaration that Smartmatic JV is, indeed, eligible to participate in the bidding process, and is in fact the bidder with the lowest calculated responsive bid.[122] If petitioners would insist otherwise by reason of Smartmatic JV's nationality, it becomes incumbent upon them to prove that the aggregate Filipino equity of the joint venture partners—SMTC, Total Information Management Corporation, Smartmatic International Holding B.V., and Jarltech International Corporation—does not comply with the 60% Filipino equity requirement, following the oft-cited doctrine that he who alleges must prove.[123] Regrettably, one fatal flaw in petitioners' posture is that they challenged the nationality of SMTC alone, which, after utilizing the control test, turned out to be a Philippine corporation as defined under RA 7042. There was no iota of evidence presented or, at the very least, even a claim advanced that the remaining partners are foreign-owned. There are, in fact, no other submissions whence - this Court can inquire as to the nationalities of the other joint venture partners. Hence, there is no other alternative for this Court other than to adopt the findings of the COMELEC and the BAC upholding Smartmatic JV's eligibility to participate in the bidding process, subsumed in which is the joint venture and its individual partners' compliance with the nationality requirement. | |||||
|
2015-12-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| A prayer for reinstatement in a complaint for illegal dismissal signifies the employee's desire to continue his working relation with his employer, and militates against the latter's claim of abandonment. Pursuant to the age-old adage that he who alleges must prove,[71] it becomes incumbent upon the employer to rebut this seeming intention of the employee to resume his work. Hence, to prove abandonment, the onus rests on the employer to establish by substantial evidence the employee's non-interest in the continuance of his employment, which petitioner herein failed to do. On the contrary, Dalag's immediate filing of a complaint after his dismissal, done in a span of only two (2) days, convinces us of his intent to continue his work with WM MFG. | |||||
|
2015-09-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| First, recall that under Sec. 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution,[50] the COMELEC Divisions are granted adjudicatory powers to decide election cases. Recall further that under Sec. 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution,[51] as interpreted in Marcoleta and Estrella, four (4) votes are necessary for the COMELEC en banc to decide a case. Naturally, the party moving for reconsideration, as the party seeking affirmative relief, has the burden of evidence in proving that the division committed reversible error.[52] Additionally, he or she also bears the corollary burden of convincing four (4) Commissioners to grant his or her plea. | |||||