Lawyerly

GR No. 206526

2015-01-28

MENDOZA, J.

It must be emphasized that once the requirements laid down by the NIRC have been met, a claimant should be considered successful in discharging its burden of proving its right to refund. Thereafter, the burden of going forward with the evidence, as distinct from the general burden of proof, shifts to the opposing party,[25] that is, the CIR. It is then the turn of the CIR to disprove the claim by presenting contrary evidence which could include the pertinent ITRs easily obtainable from its own files.

GR No. 161787

2011-07-27

MASING v. GREGORIO P. ROGELIO

BERSAMIN, J.

We agree with the CA's factual findings, because they were based on the evidence and records of the case submitted before the LA. The CA essentially complied with the guidepost that the substantiality of evidence depends on both its quantitative and its qualitative aspects.[23] Indeed, the records substantially established that Chan and MSDC had employed Rogelio until 1997. In contrast, Chan and MSDC failed to adduce credible substantiation of their averment that Rogelio had been Lim's employee from July 1989 until 1997. Credible proof that could outweigh the showing by Rogelio to the contrary was demanded of Chan and MSDC to establish the veracity of their allegation, for their mere allegation of Rogelio's employment under Lim did not constitute evidence, [24] but they did not submit such proof, sadly failing to discharge their burden of proving their own affirmative allegation. [25] In this regard, as we pointed out at the start, the doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are resolved in favor of the laborer in any controversy between a laborer and his master.

GR No. 181560

2010-11-15

VITARICH CORPORATION v. CHONA LOSIN

MENDOZA, J.

As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. In Jimenez v. NLRC,[23] the Court ruled that the burden rests on the debtor to prove payment, rather than on the creditor to prove non-payment. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment.

GR No. 168081

2008-10-17

ARMANDO G. YRASUEGUI v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES

REYES, R.T., J.

Petitioner next claims that PAL is using passenger safety as a convenient excuse to discriminate against him.[79] We are constrained, however, to hold otherwise. We agree with the CA that "[t]he element of discrimination came into play in this case as a secondary position for the private respondent in order to escape the consequence of dismissal that being overweight entailed. It is a confession-and-avoidance position that impliedly admitted the cause of dismissal, including the reasonableness of the applicable standard and the private respondent's failure to comply."[80] It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation.[81]

GR No. 163101

2008-02-13

BENGUET CORPORATION v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

VELASCO JR., J.

As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment.[27] (Emphasis supplied.) In the instant case, the obligation of Benguet to pay royalties to J.G. Realty has been admitted and supported by the provisions of the RAWOP. Thus, the burden to prove such obligation rests on Benguet.

GR No. 156132

2006-10-16

CITIBANK v. MODESTA R. SABENIANO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

When the existence of a debt is fully established by the evidence contained in the record, the burden of proving that it has been extinguished by payment devolves upon the debtor who offers such defense to the claim of the creditor. Where the debtor introduces some evidence of payment, the burden of going forward with the evidence - as distinct from the general burden of proof - shifts to the creditor, who is then under the duty of producing some evidence of non-payment.[34]

GR NO. 163605

2006-09-20

GIL M. CEMBRANO v. CITY OF BUTUAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

On the first issue, the respondent City, as judgment debtor, is burdened to prove with legal certainty that its obligation under the CA decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 55049 has been discharged by payment, which under Article 1240 of the Civil Code, is a mode of extinguishing an obligation.[55] Article 1240 of the Civil Code provides that payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has been constituted, or his successor-in-interest, or any person authorized to receive it.[56]

GR NO. 139523

2006-05-26

SPS. FELIPE AND LETICIA CANNU v. SPS. GIL AND FERNANDINA GALANG AND NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The record shows petitioners paid respondents-spouses the amount of P75,000.00 out of the P120,000.00 agreed upon. They also made payments to NHMFC amounting to P55,312.47. As to the petitioners' alleged payment to CERF Realty of P46,616.70, except for petitioner Leticia Cannu's bare allegation, we find the same not to be supported by competent evidence. As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it.[52] However, since it has been admitted in respondents-spouses' Answer that petitioners shall assume the second mortgage with CERF Realty in the amount of P35,000.00, and that Adelina Timbang, respondents-spouses' very own witness, testified[53] that same has been paid, it is but proper to return this amount to petitioners. The three amounts total P165,312.47 -- the sum to be returned to petitioners.

GR NO. 154286

2006-02-28

MAGDALENA CORUÑA v. SATURNINO CINAMIN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Under the rules of evidence, respondents, as debtors, bear the onus of showing with legal certainty that the obligation to petitioners with respect to the value of the lands awarded to them has been discharged by payment.[45] Sadly for respondents, they failed to dispose of this burden as the records of this case is bereft of any evidence, such as certifications from the proper government authorities, which would satisfactorily establish that the requisite full payment to petitioners has been complied with. The cancellation of the emancipation patents subject of this case, perforce, follows. Dura lex sed lex.

GR No. 139523

2005-05-26

SPS. FELIPE AND LETICIA CANNU v. SPS. GIL AND FERNANDINA GALANG AND NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The record shows petitioners paid respondents-spouses the amount of P75,000.00 out of the P120,000.00 agreed upon. They also made payments to NHMFC amounting to P55,312.47. As to the petitioners' alleged payment to CERF Realty of P46,616.70, except for petitioner Leticia Cannu's bare allegation, we find the same not to be supported by competent evidence. As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it.[52] However, since it has been admitted in respondents-spouses' Answer that petitioners shall assume the second mortgage with CERF Realty in the amount of P35,000.00, and that Adelina Timbang, respondents-spouses' very own witness, testified[53] that same has been paid, it is but proper to return this amount to petitioners. The three amounts total P165,312.47 -- the sum to be returned to petitioners.

GR NO. 140495

2005-04-15

G & M v. EPIFANIO CRUZ

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The rule is that the burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer,[12] in this case, herein petitioner, it being the employment agency or recruitment entity, and agent of the foreign principal, Salim Al Yami Est.,[13] which recruited respondent. In Jimenez vs. NLRC,[14] which involves a claim for unpaid wages/commissions, separation pay and damages against an employer, the Court ruled that where a person is 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 of evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegations. Since petitioner asserts that respondent has already been fully paid of his stipulated salary, the burden is upon petitioner to prove such fact of full payment.

GR No. 130935

2000-05-11

ALLAN VILLAR v. NLRC

BELLOSILLO, J.

We disagree. First, petitioners executed a JOINT AFFIDAVIT1[10] specifying their daily wages, positions and periods of employment, which was made the basis of the Labor Arbiter's computation of the monetary awards. Second, all that the NLRC needed to do was to refer to the prevailing minimum wage to ascertain the correctness of petitioners' claims. Third, and most importantly, the burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer.[11] In Jimenez v. National Labor Relations Commission[12] we held -

	GR No. 206526 2015-01-28	WINEBRENNER v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
It must be emphasized that once the requirements laid down by the NIRC have been met, a claimant should be considered successful in discharging its burden of proving its right to refund. Thereafter, the burden of going forward with the evidence, as distinct from the general burden of proof, shifts to the opposing party,[25] that is, the CIR. It is then the turn of the CIR to disprove the claim by presenting contrary evidence which could include the pertinent ITRs easily obtainable from its own files.
	GR No. 161787 2011-07-27	MASING v. GREGORIO P. ROGELIO BERSAMIN, J.
We agree with the CA's factual findings, because they were based on the evidence and records of the case submitted before the LA. The CA essentially complied with the guidepost that the substantiality of evidence depends on both its quantitative and its qualitative aspects.[23] Indeed, the records substantially established that Chan and MSDC had employed Rogelio until 1997. In contrast, Chan and MSDC failed to adduce credible substantiation of their averment that Rogelio had been Lim's employee from July 1989 until 1997. Credible proof that could outweigh the showing by Rogelio to the contrary was demanded of Chan and MSDC to establish the veracity of their allegation, for their mere allegation of Rogelio's employment under Lim did not constitute evidence, [24] but they did not submit such proof, sadly failing to discharge their burden of proving their own affirmative allegation. [25] In this regard, as we pointed out at the start, the doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are resolved in favor of the laborer in any controversy between a laborer and his master.
	GR No. 181560 2010-11-15	VITARICH CORPORATION v. CHONA LOSIN MENDOZA, J.
As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. In Jimenez v. NLRC,[23] the Court ruled that the burden rests on the debtor to prove payment, rather than on the creditor to prove non-payment. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment.
	GR No. 168081 2008-10-17	ARMANDO G. YRASUEGUI v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES REYES, R.T., J.
Petitioner next claims that PAL is using passenger safety as a convenient excuse to discriminate against him.[79] We are constrained, however, to hold otherwise. We agree with the CA that "[t]he element of discrimination came into play in this case as a secondary position for the private respondent in order to escape the consequence of dismissal that being overweight entailed. It is a confession-and-avoidance position that impliedly admitted the cause of dismissal, including the reasonableness of the applicable standard and the private respondent's failure to comply."[80] It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation.[81]
	GR No. 163101 2008-02-13	BENGUET CORPORATION v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT VELASCO JR., J.
As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment.[27] (Emphasis supplied.) In the instant case, the obligation of Benguet to pay royalties to J.G. Realty has been admitted and supported by the provisions of the RAWOP. Thus, the burden to prove such obligation rests on Benguet.
	GR No. 156132 2006-10-16	CITIBANK v. MODESTA R. SABENIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
When the existence of a debt is fully established by the evidence contained in the record, the burden of proving that it has been extinguished by payment devolves upon the debtor who offers such defense to the claim of the creditor. Where the debtor introduces some evidence of payment, the burden of going forward with the evidence - as distinct from the general burden of proof - shifts to the creditor, who is then under the duty of producing some evidence of non-payment.[34]
	GR NO. 163605 2006-09-20	GIL M. CEMBRANO v. CITY OF BUTUAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
On the first issue, the respondent City, as judgment debtor, is burdened to prove with legal certainty that its obligation under the CA decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 55049 has been discharged by payment, which under Article 1240 of the Civil Code, is a mode of extinguishing an obligation.[55] Article 1240 of the Civil Code provides that payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has been constituted, or his successor-in-interest, or any person authorized to receive it.[56]
	GR NO. 139523 2006-05-26	SPS. FELIPE AND LETICIA CANNU v. SPS. GIL AND FERNANDINA GALANG AND NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The record shows petitioners paid respondents-spouses the amount of P75,000.00 out of the P120,000.00 agreed upon. They also made payments to NHMFC amounting to P55,312.47. As to the petitioners' alleged payment to CERF Realty of P46,616.70, except for petitioner Leticia Cannu's bare allegation, we find the same not to be supported by competent evidence. As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it.[52] However, since it has been admitted in respondents-spouses' Answer that petitioners shall assume the second mortgage with CERF Realty in the amount of P35,000.00, and that Adelina Timbang, respondents-spouses' very own witness, testified[53] that same has been paid, it is but proper to return this amount to petitioners. The three amounts total P165,312.47 -- the sum to be returned to petitioners.
	GR NO. 154286 2006-02-28	MAGDALENA CORUÑA v. SATURNINO CINAMIN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Under the rules of evidence, respondents, as debtors, bear the onus of showing with legal certainty that the obligation to petitioners with respect to the value of the lands awarded to them has been discharged by payment.[45] Sadly for respondents, they failed to dispose of this burden as the records of this case is bereft of any evidence, such as certifications from the proper government authorities, which would satisfactorily establish that the requisite full payment to petitioners has been complied with. The cancellation of the emancipation patents subject of this case, perforce, follows. Dura lex sed lex.
	GR No. 139523 2005-05-26	SPS. FELIPE AND LETICIA CANNU v. SPS. GIL AND FERNANDINA GALANG AND NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The record shows petitioners paid respondents-spouses the amount of P75,000.00 out of the P120,000.00 agreed upon. They also made payments to NHMFC amounting to P55,312.47. As to the petitioners' alleged payment to CERF Realty of P46,616.70, except for petitioner Leticia Cannu's bare allegation, we find the same not to be supported by competent evidence. As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it.[52] However, since it has been admitted in respondents-spouses' Answer that petitioners shall assume the second mortgage with CERF Realty in the amount of P35,000.00, and that Adelina Timbang, respondents-spouses' very own witness, testified[53] that same has been paid, it is but proper to return this amount to petitioners. The three amounts total P165,312.47 -- the sum to be returned to petitioners.
	GR NO. 140495 2005-04-15	G & M v. EPIFANIO CRUZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The rule is that the burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer,[12] in this case, herein petitioner, it being the employment agency or recruitment entity, and agent of the foreign principal, Salim Al Yami Est.,[13] which recruited respondent. In Jimenez vs. NLRC,[14] which involves a claim for unpaid wages/commissions, separation pay and damages against an employer, the Court ruled that where a person is 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 of evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegations. Since petitioner asserts that respondent has already been fully paid of his stipulated salary, the burden is upon petitioner to prove such fact of full payment.
	GR No. 130935 2000-05-11	ALLAN VILLAR v. NLRC BELLOSILLO, J.
We disagree. First, petitioners executed a JOINT AFFIDAVIT1[10] specifying their daily wages, positions and periods of employment, which was made the basis of the Labor Arbiter's computation of the monetary awards. Second, all that the NLRC needed to do was to refer to the prevailing minimum wage to ascertain the correctness of petitioners' claims. Third, and most importantly, the burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer.[11] In Jimenez v. National Labor Relations Commission[12] we held -

BERNARDO JIMENEZ v. NLRC