JR HAULING SERVICES AND OSCAR MAPUE, PETITIONERS, VS. GAVINO L. SOLAMO, RAMIL JERUSALEM, ARMANDO PARUNGAO, RAFAEL CAPAROS, JR., NORIEL SOLAMO, ALFREDO SALANGSANG, MARK PARUNGAO AND DEAN V. CALVO, RESPONDENTS.




I

What is the quantum of proof required in illegal dismissal cases?

The quantum of proof required is merely substantial evidence - which only entails evidence to support a conclusion, "even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise."

II

Are affidavits sufficient to establish substantial evidence in labor cases? Explain. 

Yes, in labor cases, affidavits may be sufficient to establish substantial evidence. The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law do not control proceedings before the labor tribunals where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers, accompanied by supporting documents, including affidavits of witnesses, and other allied pleadings.

III

What is the weight of an affidavit of witness in labor case?

A notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. It has in its favor the presumption of regularity, which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to the falsity of the certificate. Absent such evidence, the presumption must be upheld. The burden of proof to overcome the presumption of due execution of a notarial document lies in the one contesting the same.

IV

What is misconduct? When would serious misconduct justify dismissal under the labor code?

We have defined misconduct as "the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. 

For serious misconduct to justify dismissal under the law, "(a) it must be serious, (b) must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer."

V

JR Hauling discovered that respondent drivers/helpers, without the knowledge or consent of JR Hauling, were committing anomalous transactions involving the sale of excess broilers and crates somewhere in Concepcion, Tarlac. In support thereof, petitioners presented the affidavits of helper and co-employees. May the drivers and helpers be dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence considering that they are not occupying managerial or supervisory positions?

Yes, they may be dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. 

Loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility.

Here, the drivers/helpers, were entrusted with the custody, delivery and transportation of the broilers and broiler crates. They are performing the core business of JR Hauling. Thus, even on the premise that respondents were not occupying managerial or supervisory positions, they were, undoubtedly, holding positions of responsibility.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ricardo Del Poso y Dela Cerna Vs. People of the Philippines G.R No. 210810. December 7, 2016 The victim, VVV was given by her biological mother to the petitioner when she was 7 years old and the latter then acted as her guardian. On September 10, 2005, when VVV was 9 years old, petitioner ordered her to attend to petitioner's photocopying          business. While attending the business, VVV fell asleep. When petitioner saw VVV asleep, the former became furious and laid VVV on top of an ironing board and placed a heated flat iron on her. When VVV tried to evade the heat emanating from the flat iron, her forehead, right elbow, left cheek, left buttock and back got burned. Thereafter, petitioner got her down from the ironing board and ordered her to sleep. The following morning, petitioner's wife saw the burns on VVV and told petitioner not to do it again. Later on, VVV went to her Lola Ma. Luisa to watch TV and the latter, and several other...
Read more

Marcelo G. Saluday Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018

Marcelo G. Saluday Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018 On 5 May 2009. Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was flagged down by Task Force Davao of the Philippine Army at a checkpoint near the Tefasco Wharf in Ilang, Davao City. SCAA Junbert M. Buco (Buco), a member of the Task Force, requested all male passengers to disembark from the vehicle while allowing the female passengers to remain inside. He then boarded the bus to check the presence and intercept the entry of any contraband, illegal firearms or explosives, and suspicious individuals. SCAA Buco checked all the baggage and personal effects of the passengers, but a small, gray-black pack bag on the seat at the rear of the bus caught his attention. He lifted the bag and found it too heavy for its small size. SCAA Buco then looked at the male passengers lined outside and noticed that a man in a white shirt (later identified as petitioner) kept peeping through the window towards the direction of the b...
Read more