It has always been argued that the Employer must show proof that the employee has been duly paid of his money claims since it has in its possession proof of such payments, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, it is deemed that no payment has been made.
This contention is correct provided that the employee had already established that it is entitled to such benefits or claims. Simply put, the employee must first establish his allegation (Godofredo Morales v. Skills International Company, G.R. 149285).
In the case of Romeo Lagatic v. NLRC, G.R. 121004, January 28, 1998, the Court ruled that the employee failed to show his entitlement to overtime and rest day pay, due to lack of sufficient evidence as to the number of days and hours when he rendered overtime and rest day work. Entitlement to overtime pay must first be established by proof that said overtime work was actually performed, before an employee may avail of said benefit. To support his allegations, the employee submitted in evidence minutes of meetings wherein he was assigned to work on weekends and holidays at Cityland'd Housing projects. Suffice it to say that said minutes do not prove that the employee actually worked on said dates. It is basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegations.
In another cases, the court denied the claim since there were no proof adduced to show entitlement.
The employees never produced any proof of actual performance of overtime work (Julio Cagampan v. NLRC, G.R. No. 85122-24, March 22, 1991). As for the employee's claim for overtime pay, it must be denied, for other than the uncorroborated affidavits of her colleagues, there is no concrete proof that she is entitled thereto. And so must her claim for allowances, no proof to her entitlement thereto having been presented (Lilia P. Labadan v. Forest Hills Academy, G.R. No. 172295, December 23, 2008).
In the recent decided case this January 16, 2012, Abduljuahid R. Pigcaaulan v. Security and Credit Investigation, Inc., G.R. No. 173648, the Court reversed the decison of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC and declared that "The handwritten itemized computations are self-serving, unreliable and unsubstantial evidence to sustain the grant of salary differentials, particularly overtime pay. Unsigned and unauthenticated as they are, there is no way of verifying the truth of the handwritten entries stated therein. Written only in pieces of paper and solely prepared by Canoy and Pigcaulan, tehses representatives daily time records, as termed by the Labor Arbiter, can hardly be considered as competent evidence to be used as basis to prove that the two were underpaid of their salaries. We find nothing on records whch could substantially support Pigcaulan's contention that he had rendered service beyond eight hours to entitle him to overtime pay and during Sundays to entitle him to restday pay. Hence, in the absence of any concrete proof that additional service beyond the normal working hours and days had indeed been rendered, we cannot affirm the grant of overtime pay.
