G & M (PHIL.), INC., VS WILLIE BATOMALAQUE

G & M (PHIL.), INC.,

VS

WILLIE BATOMALAQUE
461 SCRA 111 (2005)

The burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer.

Abdul Aziz Abdullah Al Muhaimid Najad Car Maintenance Association (Abdul Aziz) hired Willie Batomalaque as car painter through a recruiter and agent petitioner G & M Phil., Inc. (G&M). Their contract is for 2 years.

Batomalaque started working on March 10, 1992, but on June 7, 1994, he was repatriated. He then filed a complaint against G&M, Abdul Aziz and Country Empire Insurance Company for non-payment and underpayment of salaries and damages with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The Labor Arbiter (LA) credited Batomalaque’s complaint for underpayment of salaries during the first year of his contract but denied his other claims, and ordered G&M and other defendants to pay Batomalaque. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the decision of the LA.

ISSUE:
Whether or not G&M has the obligation to prove that Batomalaque was paid his salaries in full

HELD:
Specifically with respect to labor cases, the burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer, the rationale being 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.

Aside, however, from its bare allegation that its principal Abdul Aziz had fully paid Batomalaque’s salaries, G&M did not present any evidence, e.g., payroll or payslips, to support its defense of payment. G&M thus failed to discharge the onus probandi. G&M, as the recruiter and agent of Abdul Aziz, is thus solidarily liable with the latter for the unpaid wages of Batomalaque.

On repeated occasions, the Court ruled that the debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment. To discharge means to extinguish an obligation, and in contract law discharge occurs either when the parties have performed their obligations in the contract, or when an event the conduct of the parties, or the operation of law releases the parties from performing. Thus, a party who alleges that an obligation has been extinguished must prove facts or acts giving rise to the extinction.

The fact of underpayment does not shift the burden of evidence to Batomalaque because partial payment does not extinguish the obligation. Only when the debtor introduces evidence that the obligation has been extinguished does the burden of evidence shift to the creditor who is then under a duty of producing evidence to show why payment does not extinguish the obligation.