Does the Employer has the Burden of Proof to show Payment of Overtime Pay and Other Money Claims?

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.

Payment to Employees on Suspension due to Inclement Weather like Typhoon

PAYMENT OF WAGES FOR PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYEES DUE TO INCLEMENT WEATHER OR NATURAL CALAMITIES

All private sector employees are advised of the following rules for pay on suspension of work due to typhoon.

A. IF UNWORKED

• NO PAY, unless there is a favourable company policy, practice or collective bargaining agreement (CBA) granting payment of wage on said day; and
• When the employee has accrued leave credits, he may be allowed to utilise such leave so that he will ave compensation on said days.

B. IF WORKED

• NO ADDITIONAL PAY is given to the employees but only their salary on said day.

Although it is NO WORK NO PAY, to alleviate the plight of employees in times of crisis, the employers may provide such extra incentives or benefits to employees who reported for work.


*Labor Advisory 10, s. 2013

CGRLAW & Associates

5F First Global Building, 122 Gamboa Street

corner Salcedo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City

Tel. No. (+63 2) 985 4322/  (+63 2) 889 5210

Mobile: +63 918 948 6092

email:claude.requino@cgrlaw.tk

info@cgrlaw.tk

website: http://www.cgrlaw.tk

This email and its attachments are intended solely for the use of the addressee.  This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged attorney-client communication or otherwise protected from disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and/or attachment is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the addressee or the person responsible for delivering this email and any attachments included to the addressee, you may not copy, deliver, or otherwise distribute this email and any attachments included to anyone else.  If you have received this message in error, please notify us by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments from your system.