6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Any compromise/amicable settlement or voluntary agreement on monetary claims inclusive of damages under this section shall be paid within four (4) months from the approval of the settlement by the appropriate authority. In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. (Emphases supplied.) The Court finds that respondent had been paid her salaries for the nine months she worked in Ulsan, South Korea, so she is no longer entitled to an award of the same. It is a settled rule of evidence that the one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege nonpayment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove nonpayment.[50] In the case at bar, petitioners submitted nine cash vouchers with respondent's signature. That the nine cash vouchers did not bear the name of SAENCO and its Tax Identification Number is insignificant as there is no legal basis for requiring such. The vouchers clearly state that these were "salary full payment" for the months of October 5, 2003 to June 5, 2004 for US$600.00 to respondent and each of the vouchers was signed received by respondent. After carefully examining respondent's signatures on the nine cash vouchers, and even comparing them to respondent's signatures on all the pages of her Employment Contract, the Court observes that respondent's signatures on all documents appear to be consistently the same. The consistency and similarity of respondent's signatures on all the documents supports the genuineness of said signatures. At this point, the burden of evidence has shifted to respondent to negate payment of her salaries. Respondent, though, admits that the signatures on the nine cash vouchers are hers but asserts that she really had not received her salaries and was only made to sign said vouchers all in one instance. Respondent further avers that she was made to believe that her salaries would be deposited to her bank account, and she presents as proof the passbook of her bank account showing that no amount equivalent to her salary was ever deposited. The Court is not persuaded. Absent any corroborating evidence, the Court is left only with respondent's bare allegations on the matter. Pelzer's statements in his Affidavit concerning the nonpayment of respondent's salaries are hearsay, dependent mainly on what respondent confided to him. It makes no sense to the Court that respondent would agree to an extension of her Employment Contract for another six months if she had not been receiving her salaries for the original six-month period. From her own elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64155 22/27