Photo from Unsplash | Ibrahim Rifath
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Jurisprudence tells us that one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it; the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment.
The burden of proof is a cornerstone of legal systems around the world, serving as a fundamental principle in the pursuit of justice. It determines which party in a legal dispute is responsible for proving their claims and to what standard. This principle is crucial for ensuring fairness in legal proceedings and plays a pivotal role in both criminal and civil cases.
Burden of proof, as defined by Sec. 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his or her claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.
Burden of proof in monetary claims cases
Jurisprudence tells us that one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it; the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. Indeed, once the existence of an indebtedness is duly established by evidence, the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment rests on the debtor. (KT Construction Supply, Inc. v. Philippine Savings Bank, G.R. No. 228435, June 21, 2017)
Burden of proof in monetary claims in labor cases
It is a settled labor doctrine that in cases involving non-payment of monetary claims of employees, the employer has the burden of proving that the employees did receive their wages and benefits and that the same were paid in accordance with law. (Asentista v. Jupp & Company, G.R. No. 229404, January 24, 2018)
As elucidated in De Guzman v. NLRC, et al. (G.R. NO. 167701, December 12, 2007)
It is settled that once the employee has set out with particularity in his complaint, position paper, affidavits and other documents the labor standard benefits he is entitled to, and which he alleged that the employer failed to pay him, it becomes the employer’s burden to prove that it has paid these money claims. One who pleads payment has the burden of proving it, and even where the employees 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 burden of proof is a fundamental principle in legal systems, crucial for ensuring fairness, protecting rights, and guiding legal proceedings. By delineating which party is responsible for proving claims and to what standard, it provides a structured framework for evaluating evidence and making decisions. Understanding the burden of proof is essential for appreciating how justice is administered and how legal decisions are made. Its role in both criminal and civil cases highlights its significance in maintaining the integrity of the legal process and ensuring equitable outcomes for all parties involved.
Related Article/s:
Prescription of Claims in Illegal Dismissal Cases and Money Claims
Who has the burden of proving that overtime work has been performed?
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.