This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-05-31 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence dictates that the burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer. The rationale for this rule was explained in G & M Philippines, Inc. v. Cuambot[57]: x x x [O]ne who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. The reason for the rule is that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents - which will show that overtime, differentials, service incentive leave, and other claims of workers have been paid - are not in the possession of the worker but in the custody and absolute control of the employer. Thus, the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged with payment falls on the debtor, in accordance with the rule that one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. x x x[58] | |||||