Tag - burden of proof

Use of Criteria in Termination due to Redundancy and the LIFO Method

In several instances, the Court has held that it is important for a company to have fair and reasonable criteria in implementing its redundancy program, such as but not limited to, (a) preferred status, (b) efficiency and (c) seniority. CBA may dictate the rules to be followed in case of redundancy. Parties may stipulate that LIFO rule shall apply in case of termination in the line of work. However, where two positions are involved, last in first out rule may [...]

Burden of Proof in Termination Due to Authorized Cause

The authorized causes under Article 298 are as follows: Installation of labor-saving devices; Redundancy; Retrenchment; and Closure or cessation of business operations of an establishment or an undertaking. It appears that the enumeration is exclusive. Meaning, there can be no other grounds that can be invoked other than those stated. This is so because the precursor of Article 298, Article 299, previously carried a comprehensive phrase “other similar causes” which was repeated twice in the old provision. While in the new provision as presently [...]

Burden of Proof in Constructive Dismissal

Burden of proof is the standard required in proving a case. In cases of constructive dismissal, the burden of proof is on the employer to show that the employee was dismissed for a valid and a just cause. (Suldao vs. Cimech System Construction, Inc., G.R. No. 171392, October 30, 2006.) This means that if the employee claims he was constructively dismissed from service and sues the employer, it is the employer who must prove that the employee was not dismissed [...]

Burden of Proof in Employee Dismissal

Burden of proof in dismissal cases lies with the employer. This means that if an employee is dismissed from service, the employer has to prove that such dismissal is valid. An employee is entitled to security of tenure. Article 294 of the Labor Code provides, that: “ART. 294. Security of tenure.—In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is [...]

Burden to Prove Existence of Employer-Employee Relationship Lies with the Claimant

To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship, jurisprudence has invariably adhered to the four-fold test, to wit: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct, or the so-called “control test.” This is highly relevant in a labor dispute involving a claim of illegal dismissal. Although no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship, [...]

Substantial Evidence is the Standard of Proof Required in Labor Cases

Substantial evidence is that amount of evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Proving a labor case does not have to be beyond reasonable doubt. Proof that is substantial enough to support a position may be sufficient to establish a claim or defense. The post below is based on the book Guide to Valid Dismissal of Employees Second Edition (pp. 88-89). In evaluating evidence available in a dismissal case, must the guilt of an [...]

The Employer who Raises the Defense of Resignation against an Illegal Dismissal Complaint must prove that Resignation was Voluntary

Philippine Nautical Training College, (PNTC), is a private entity engaged in the business of providing maritime training and education. In 1988, PNTC employed Grande as Instructor for medical courses like Elementary First Aid and Medical Emergency. Grande became the Course Director of the Safety Department. PNTC was then principally engaged in providing maritime training for seafarers. In 2002, Grande was appointed Course Director for the Training Department of PNTC school. In November 2007, she resigned as she had to pursue [...]

Burden of Proof in Dispute Over Resignation Letter

Teodora F. Campo (Campo) claimed that she worked for Silvertex Weaving Corporaton (SILVERTEX) as a weaving machine operator. Prior to her dismissal, she was suspended for one   week after a stitching machine that she was operating overheated and emitted smoke on.   When she tried to report back to work, she was denied entry by the SILVERTEX’s security guard, reportedly upon the instructions of Arcenal. For their defense, the Silvertex Weaving Corporation (Silvertex) argued that Campo voluntarily resigned from SILVERTEX [...]

Company Practice Must Be Proven by Claimant

Employees complain that they are entitled to a higher retirement benefit based on company practice. Is the claim of “company practice” enough to grant such benefit? The burden of proof that the benefit has ripened into company practice, i.e., giving of the benefit is done over a long period of time, and that it has been made consistently and deliberately, rests with the employee. To be considered as a regular company practice, the employee must prove by substantial evidence that the [...]

error: Content is protected !!