[Substantial Evidence]

Alexander Vinoya v. NLRC

G.R. No. 126586 February 2, 2000

It should be pointed out that no particular form of proof is required to prove the
existence of an employer-employee relationship. Any competent and relevant evidence
may show the relationship. If only documentary evidence would be required to
demonstrate that relationship, no scheming employer would ever be brought before
bar of justice.

xx

[Security of Tenure]

Julito Sagales v. Rustan's Commercial Corporation

G.R. No. 166554 November 27, 2008

Security of tenure is a paramount right of every employee that is held sacred by

the Constitution. The reason for this is that labor is deemed to be "property"
within the meaning of constitutional guarantees. Indeed, as it is the policy of the
State to guarantee the right of every worker to security of tenure as an act of
social justice, such right should not be denied on mere speculation of any similar
or unclear nebulous basis.

xx

[Burden of Proof in Termination Cases]

VH Manufacturing, Inc. vs NLRC

G.R. No. 130957 January 19, 2000

In termination disputes, the burden of proof is always on the employer to prove

that the dismissal was for a just and valid cause.

xx

Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Arlene Espiritu

G.R. No. 204944-45 December 3, 2014

Once the employee establishes the fact of dismissal, supported by evidence, the
burden of proof shifts to the employer to show that there was a just or authorized
cause for the dismissal and that due process was observed.

xx

[Two-fold Due Process in Termination]

San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC

G.R. No. 78277 May 12, 1989

Under the Labor Code, as amended, the requirements for the lawful dismissal of an
employee by his employer are two-fold: the substantive and the procedural. Not only
must the dismissal be for a valid or authorized cause as provided by law (Articles
279, 281, 282-284, New Labor Code), but the rudimentary requirements of due process
notice and hearing must also be observed before an employee may be dismissed.
One does not suffice; without their concurrence, the termination would, in the eyes
of the law, be illegal.
xx

[Requisites of Serious Misconduct]

Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa sa Keihin v. Keihin Philippines Corporation

G.R. No. 171115 August 9, 2010

For serious misconduct to justify dismissal, the following requisites must be

present: (a) it must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the
employee's duties; and (c) it must show that the employee has become unfit to
continue working for the employer.

xx

[Procedural Due Process]

Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Mira

G.R. No. 144314 November 21, 2002

On the procedural aspect, a termination based on just cause requires two (2)
notices and a hearing. These requirements are mandatory, non-compliance therewith
would render any judgment of dismissal reached by the employer void and inexistent.

xx

Cynthia Gana v. NLRC

G.R. No. 164640 June 13, 2008

Settled is the rule that the requirements of due process are satisfied where the
parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the
controversy at hand.

xx

Felix Perez and Amante Doira v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company
G.R. No. 152048 April 7, 2009

In sum, the following are the guiding principles in connection with the hearing
requirement in dismissal cases:

(a) "ample opportunity to be heard" means any meaningful opportunity (verbal or

written) given to the employee to answer the charges against him and submit
evidence in support of his defense, whether in a hearing, conference or some other
fair, just and reasonable way.

(b) a formal hearing or conference becomes mandatory only when requested by the
employee in writing or substantial evidentiary disputes exist or a company rule or
practice requires it, or when similar circumstances justify it.

(c) the "ample opportunity to be heard" standard in the Labor Code prevails over
the "hearing or conference" requirement in the implementing rules and regulations.

xx

[Consequences of Finding the Fact of Illegal Dismissal]

WenPhil Corporation v. Almer R. Abing and Anabelle M. TUazon

G.R. No. 207983 April 7, 2014
The normal consequences of a finding that an employee has been illegally dismissed
are: first, that the employee becomes entitled to reinstatement to his former
position without loss of seniority rights; and second, the payment of backwages
covers the period running from his illegal dismissal up to his actual
reinstatement. These two reliefs are not inconsistent with one another and the
labor arbiter can award both simultaneously.

[Preventive Suspension]

Baez v. De La Salle University

G.R. No. 167177 September 27, 2006

Preventive Suspension is justified only in cases where the employee's continued

presence in the company during the investigation poses a serious and imminent
threat to the life or property of the employer or of the employee's co-workers.
Without this threat, preventive suspension is not proper.

xx

[Award in Finding the Fact of Illegal Dismissal]

Sari-Sari Group of Companies, Inc. vs. Piglas

G.R. No. 164624 August 11, 2008

An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either (1) reinstatement, if viable,

or separation pay, if reinstatement is no longer viable; and (2) backwages.

[Backwages]

Escareal v. NLRC
213 SCRA 472 (1992)

Backwages is a form of relief that restores the income that was lost by reason of
unlawful dismissal.

xx

Cristobal v. Melchor
101 SCRA 857 (1980)

The rationale for the relief is that an employee whose dismissal is found to be
illegal is considered not having left his office so that he is entitled to all the
rights and privileges that accrue to him by virtue of the office that he held.

xx

[Computation of Backwages if Preventive Suspension is Illegal]

Ceferino Buhain v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 143709 July 2, 2002

In view of the actual losses suffered by the complainant, that he is paid backwages
and all benefits which he ought to have received from date of preventive suspension
until the time he is illegally dismissed;

[Computation of Backwages if Separation Pay is Ordered in lieu of Reinstatement]

CRC Agricultural Trading v. NLRC

G.R. No. 177664 December 23, 2009

Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, backwages shall be computed

from the time of the illegal termination up to the finality of the decision.

xx

[Separation Pay in lieu of Reinstatement]

F.F. Marine Corporation v. NLRC, 2nd Division, G.R. No. 152039 April 8, 2005

It is well-settled that when a person is illegally dismissed, he is entitled to

reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full
backwages. In the event, however, that reinstatement is no longer feasible, or if
the employee decides not to be reinstated, the employer shall pay him separation
pay in lieu of reinstatement.

xx

[Nominal Damages]

Iran v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121927 April 22, 1998

In labor cases, nominal damages are usually granted to vindicate or recognize

employees right to procedural due process which was violated by the employer.

xx

Chronicle Securities Corp. v. NLRC

G.R. No. 157907 November 25, 2004