Monday, October 23, 2017

Burden of Evidence Shifts to Employee When Employer Submits Evidence of Payment

"In repeated occasions, this Court ruled that the debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment. To discharge means to extinguish an obligation, and in contract law discharge occurs either when the parties have performed their obligations in the contract, or when an event the conduct of the parties, or the operation of law releases the parties from performing. Thus, a party who alleges that an obligation has been extinguished must prove facts or acts giving rise to the extinction.

The fact of underpayment does not shift the burden of evidence to the plaintiff-herein respondent because partial payment does not extinguish the obligation. Only when the debtor introduces evidence that the obligation has been extinguished does the burden of evidence shift to the creditor who is then under a duty of producing evidence to show why payment does not extinguish the obligation."

(See G & M PHILIPPINES, INC. vs BATOMALAQUE, G. R. No. 151849, June 23, 2005)

RELATED ARTICLES:





Employee must prove entitlement to overtime pay and premium pay

"However, the CA was correct in its finding that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient factual basis for the award of overtime, and premium pays for holidays and rest days. The burden of proving entitlement to overtime pay and premium pay for holidays and rest days rests on the employee because these are not incurred in the normal course of business. In the present case, the petitioners failed to adduce any evidence that would show that they actually rendered service in excess of the regular eight working hours a day, and that they in fact worked on holidays and rest days."

(See WILGEN LOON, ET. AL vs. POWER MASTER, INC., G.R. No. 189404,   December 11, 2013)

RELATED ARTICLES:
Employer has the burden of proving payment of employee's benefits
Doubts in the parties' evidence should be resolved in favor of the employee





Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Labor Law: Doubts in parties' evidence should be resolved in favor of employee

"It is a well-settled doctrine, that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. It is a time-honored rule that in controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in the former's favor. The policy is to extend the doctrine to a greater number of employees who can avail of the benefits under the law, which is in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and protection of labor."

(Nicario v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 125340, September 17, 1998, 295 SCRA 619, 626-627)





Labor Law: Employer has the burden of proving payment of employee's benefits

"Moreover, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. The reason for the rule is that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents which will show that overtime, differentials, service incentive leave, and other claims of workers have been paid are not in the possession of the worker but in the custody and absolute control of the employer. Thus, the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged with payment falls on the debtor, in accordance with the rule that one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Only when the debtor introduces evidence that the obligation has been extinguished does the burden shift to the creditor, who is then under a duty of producing evidence to show why payment does not extinguish the obligation. In this case, petitioner was unable to present ample evidence to prove its claim that respondent had received all his salaries and benefits in full."

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Sample Form: SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY (To Represent In A Mediation)

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
  
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

      I, ___________________, of legal age, married, Filipino, with postal address at ________________________________, do hereby appoint, name and constitute Mr. ________________________, likewise of legal age, singe/married, with residence at _______________________________ as my true and legal representative to act for and in my name and stead and to represent me during the mediation proceedings before the Philippine Mediation Center Unit in the Court of Appeals relative to the case docketed as CA-G.R. SP No._________, to offer, negotiate, accept, decide and enter into a compromise agreement without need of further approval by or notification to me.

     I hereby grant my representative full power and authority to execute and perform every act necessary to render effective the power to compromise as though I myself have so performed it and hereby approving all that he may do by virtue of these presents.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this ______ day of ____________________, 2017 at ________________.



____________________
             Principal
Conforme:

_____________________
      Attorney-in-fact




Republic of the Philippines )
 _____________________) S.S
 


BEFORE ME, personally appeared:
             

Name                                ID Number                        Date/Place Issued
  
Known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that the same is their free and voluntary act and deed.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL, on the date and place first above written.

                                                                                                            



Doc. No.______;
Page No. ______;
Book No.______;
Series of 2017




Sample Form: SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY (To Claim Check)

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, _______________, of legal age, married, Filipino, with postal address at c/o ___________________________, do hereby appoint, name and constitute Mr. ______________________, likewise of legal age, married, with residence at _____________________________ as my true and legal representative to act for and in my name and stead and to claim my check from the NLRC Cashier representing the cash bond which I personally posted in relation to the case ______________________ vs. _____________________, bearing case number NLRC LAC No._________ / CASE No. _________, and as well as other checks, if any.

      I hereby grant my representative full power and authority to execute and perform every act necessary to render effective the power to compromise as though I myself have so performed it and hereby approving all that he may do by virtue of these presents.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this ______ day of ____________________, 2017 at ________________.



_________________
Principal
Conforme:

Conforme:
_____________________
      Attorney-in-fact



Republic of the Philippines )
 _____________________) S.S


BEFORE ME, personally appeared:
            
    Name                                           ID Number                          Date/Place Issued

      

Known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that the same is their free and voluntary act and deed.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL, on the date and place first above written.

                                                                                                            
                                                                                  Notary Public
Doc. No.______;
Page No. ______;
Book No.______;
Series of 2017





Monday, October 2, 2017

Nestle's "Coffee-Mate" vs. Puregold's "Coffee Match"

In a Decision dated September 6, 2017 in the case of SOCIETE DES PRODUITS, NESTLE, S.A. vs. PUREGOLD PRICE CLUB, G.R. No. 217194, the Supreme Court Ruled in favor of Puregold:

     The word "COFFEE" is the common dominant feature between Nestle's mark "COFFEE-MATE" and Puregold's mark "COFFEE MATCH." However, following Section 123, paragraph (h) of RA 8293 which prohibits exclusive registration of generic marks, the word "COFFEE" cannot be exclusively appropriated by either Nestle or Puregold since it is generic or descriptive of the goods they seek to identify. In Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,55 this Court held that generic or descriptive words are not subject to registration and belong to the public domain. Consequently, we must look at the word or words paired with the generic or descriptive word, in this particular case "-MATE" for Nestle's mark and "MATCH" for Puregold's mark, to determine the distinctiveness and registrability of Puregold's mark "COFFEE MATCH." 

     We agree with the findings of the BLA-IPO and ODG-IPO. The distinctive features of both marks are sufficient to warn the purchasing public which are Nestle's products and which are Puregold's products. While both "-MATE" and "MATCH" contain the same first three letters, the last two letters in Puregold's mark, "C" and "H," rendered a visual and aural character that made it easily distinguishable from Nestle's mark. Also, the distinctiveness of Puregold's mark with two separate words with capital letters "C" and "M" made it distinguishable from Nestle's mark which is one word with a hyphenated small letter "-m" in its mark. In addition, there is a phonetic difference in pronunciation between Nestle's "-MATE" and Puregold's "MATCH." As a result, the eyes and ears of the consumer would not mistake Nestle's product for Puregold's product. Accordingly, this Court sustains the findings of the BLA-IPO and ODG-IPO that the likelihood of confusion between Nestle's product and Puregold's product does not exist and upholds the registration of Puregold's mark.