Un-discharged burden

The rule is that the burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer. But if the employee already admits that his employer has paid him except that it is short, is the burden now shifted on the employee to prove underpayment? This is the question raised in this case of Emong.

Emong was recruited by GMP Inc. as trailer driver for its foreign principal SAE for a period of two years with a stipulated monthly salary of $625 starting June 6, 1990. Emong alleged that when he arrived in Saudi Arabia he was made to sign an employment contract in blank and his salary was reduced to SR604. Seven months later or on December 28, 1990, Emong was already back in the Philippines. He said he was dismissed and deported by his employer because of his complaint for sub-human working condi-tions, non-payment of wages and overtime pay, salary deduction and change of employer. Hence he filed with the Labor Arbiter an Affidavit Complaint against GMP Inc. for illegal dismissal, underpayment and non-payment of wages and refund of transportation expenses. He claimed that he was only paid an amount equivalent to five months salary and he did not receive his salary for the last two months. He submitted original duplicates of the computerized pay slips issued by SAE showing the amount of SR604 as his basic salary.

GMP Inc. denied the complaint. It contended that Emong abandoned his job when he joined an illegal strike and refused to work, constituting a breach of his employment contract and a valid cause for termination of his employment. GMP Inc. also claimed that the pay slip submitted by Emong was inadmissible because the original copy was not submitted and that its existence, due execution, genuineness and authenticity were not established.

The Labor Arbiter found merit in GMP Inc.’s contention that Emong abandoned his job but nevertheless granted his claim for underpayment of wages and two months unpaid salary. This ruling was affirmed by the NLRC. So GMP Inc. and its Saudi principal SAE were ordered to pay Emong jointly and severally; $3,125 less SR3,020 representing salary differentials for five months and $1,250 representing unpaid salaries for two months. GMP Inc. questioned this ruling before the Court of Appeals (CA). But the CA upheld the NLRC. The CA said that it is the burden of GMP Inc. to prove that the salaries paid by its foreign principal complied with the contractual stipulations. Since GMP Inc. failed to discharge such burden, then NLRC was correct to rely on Emong’s claim of underpayment.

But GMP still insisted that since Emong admitted that his employer paid him, albeit short of what was stipulated upon, then it now rests upon Emong to prove underpayment and the pay slip submitted is not enough to prove the same because of its questionable authenticity. Was GMP Inc. correct?

No. When a person sued for a debt admits that the debt was originally owed, and pleads payment in whole or in part, it is incumbent upon him to prove such payment. This is based on the principle that each party must prove his affirmative allegations. Since GMP Inc. asserts that Emong has already been fully paid his stipulated salary, it has the burden to prove such fact of full payment. While Emong may have admitted that he has actually been paid the amount of SR604 as monthly salary, it does not discharge GMP from proving full payment of the stipulated $625. Emong’s admission that some payments have been made does not change the burden of proof. GMP merely denied Emong’s claim of underpayment. It did not present any controverting evidence to prove full payment.

With regard to the admissibility of the pay slips, the fact that it is not authenticated will not militate against Emong’s claim. The proceedings before the NLRC are not covered by the technical rules of evidence and procedure. So in presenting the pay slips which were original duplicates of the computerized pay slips issued by SAE to it workers, Emong has established the fact of underpayment and the burden has shifted on GMP to prove that he was totally compensated for actual services rendered (G & M Phils. Inc. vs. Cruz G.R. 140495, April 15, 2005 456 SCRA 215).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]