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

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

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)

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

Labor Bar Exam Coverage: Four-fold Test

a. Four-fold Test 

     a. Selection and engagement of employee;
     b. Payment of wages;
     c. Power of dismissal; and
     d. Power of control (the most important test)

Case Digest in Labor Law: Cabrera vs. NLRC

Cabrera vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 83387 June 27, 1991

FACTS:
Dismissed by the National Service Corporation, the petitioners complained to the Ministry of Labor and Employment on September 17, 1980. After considering the position papers of the parties, the Labor Arbiter ordered the petitioners' reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and the payment to them of two years back wages and other benefits. 3 The decision was appealed to and affirmed by the First Division of the NLRC on December 9, 1985, and in due time, the petitioners moved for the issuance of a writ of execution. This was opposed by NASECO on the ground that it had not been furnished with a copy of the decision, but the opposition was rejected and the petition was granted. Reconsideration of the order having been denied, the NASECO appealed to the NLRC, which, through its Third Division this time, declared itself without jurisdiction and dismissed the case on August 18, 1987. 4 Citing the NHA case, the public respondent held that the NASECO was not covered by the Labor Code but by Civil Service rules and regulations, being a government-owned or controlled corporation applying thereto the 1973 Constitution Article XII-B, Section 1(1) providing that "the Civil Service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision and instrumentality of the Government, including every government-owned or controlled corporation."

ISSUE :
Whether or not the Labor Code or the Civil Service rules and regulations shall apply to the instant case.

RULING:
In National Service Corporation v. NLRC, however, that decision was overturned on November 24, 1988, after the Court found that the NASECO did not have an original charter from the legislature. The rule applied was Article IX-B, Section 2(1) of the 1987 Constitution providing that "the Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.

On the applicability of the new doctrine, the Court said:
On the premise that it is the 1987 Constitution that governs the instant case because it is the Constitution in place at the time of decision thereof, the NLRC has jurisdiction to accord relief to the parties. As an admitted subsidiary of the NIDC, in turn a subsidiary of the PNB, the NASECO is a government-owned or controlled corporation without original charter.

Our finding is that the respondent NLRC erred in dismissing the petitioners' complaint for lack of jurisdiction because the rule now is that only government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters come under the Civil Service. The NASECO having been organized under the Corporation Law and not by virtue of a special legislative charter, its relations with its personnel are governed by the Labor Code and come under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission.