Agreed Salary
– SR1,200
Salary Received
– SR900 for 5 months
– SR700 for 8 months
Salary differential
SR1,200 – SR900 = SR300 x 5 mos.
= SR1,500
SR1,200 – SR700 = SR500 x 8 mos.
= SR4,000
SR5,500
The claim for the non-payment of salaries for eleven (11) months (April 1993 to January 1994) is, however, untenable. The records show that
complainant was repatriated on June 7, 1994, more than two (2) years from his deployment on March 9, 1992. While he claims for underpayment of
salaries and wages for thirteen (13) months,he did not claim for illegal dismissal, although he claims for the payment of salaries from April 1993 to
January 1994.18 This Office is in a quandary why complainant stayed at the jobsite for eleven (11) months, without work, yet there was no complaint
lodged in the Labor/Consulate Office in Saudi Arabia. The undersigned opines that if complainant really felt aggrieved, then he could have easily filed a
complaint at the jobsite. However, complainant did nothing to vindicate his right, in fact, he stayed on until June 1994. Under these circumstances, this
Office gives more credence to the respondents’ assertion that complainant completed his 2 years (sic) contract and even extended for another 2
months before his repatriation. It is worthy to note that complainant never claimed that he was constructively dismissed rendering his claim for payment
of the unexpired portion of the contract untenable.
The claim for refund of transportation expenses is likewise, not allowable in the absence of proof that the repatriation cost was actually shouldered by
him. (Underscoring supplied)
The labor arbiter thus disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondents G & M (Phils.), Inc., Abdul Aziz Abdullah Al Muhaimid Najad Car Maintenance Association and
Country Empire Insurance Company are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally complainant Willie Batomalaque the amount of FIVE THOUSAND
FIVE HUNDRED SAUDI RIYALS (SR5,500) or in Philippine currency at the prevailing rate of exchange as certified to by the Central Bank at the time
of payment, representing his underpayment of salaries and wages.
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.19 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Petitioner appealed20 the labor arbiter’s decision to the National Labor Relation Commission (NLRC) which, by Resolution21 of February 11, 1999,
affirmed the same.
Aggrieved, petitioner, via a petition for certiorari22 under Rule 65, brought the case to the Court of Appeals which docketed it as CA-G.R. No. 52920. By
the assailed decision23 of April 27, 2001, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s petition, it holding that the NLRC committed no error much less
any grave abuse of discretion.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration24 having been denied by the Court of Appeals, by Resolution25 of January 8, 2002, it lodged the present
petition.26
Petitioner maintains that respondent had been paid his salaries in full and it was incumbent upon him to prove otherwise.
Petitioner’s claim fails.
It is settled that as a general rule, a party who alleges payment as a defense has the burden of proving it.27
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.28
Aside, however, from its bare allegation that its principal Abdul Aziz had fully paid respondent’s salaries, petitioner did not present any evidence, e.g.,
payroll or payslips, to support its defense of payment. Petitioner thus failed to discharge the onus probandi.