6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly that the Northern Marianas authorities had ever moved to declare him an illegal alien. Moreover, had Centro Project been aware of any likelihood of him being soon declared an illegal alien, it could have easily advised him thereof, and explained the situation to him in due course. Yet, he was not at all informed of the likelihood. Denying its participation in the fixing of the expiration date, Centro Project argues that it was the Philippine representative in Northern Marianas who had inserted by hand the date of expiration in the Employment Contract. The argument has no basis. Firstly, Centro Project’s allegation on the expiration date being merely inserted by the Philippine representative in Northern Marianas was not substantiated with credible proof. It supported its allegation by alluding to the fact that the signature of the person who had verified the employment contract was similar to the handwritten insertion made on the blank space of the employment contract. That was not enough, however, in view of the basic rule that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof.[18] Hence, the allegation, an essentially self-serving statement, was devoid of any evidentiary weight. And, secondly, even assuming that Centro Project did not have any participation in fixing the expiration date, it did not amend the employment contract despite being fully aware that the term of 12 months was clearly indicated as the period of Naluis’ work. The primary Employment Contract was sent for approval to the principal employer abroad, as well as to the immigration authorities of the Philippines and Northern Marianas. In such circumstances, Centro Project could not but know that the period had been fixed by the immigration authorities of Northern Marianas prior to his actual deployment. Thus, Centro Project was in bad faith in not taking any action when the Philippine immigration authorities supposedly inserted the handwritten date of expiration of the contract. In fact, the addendum to the employment contract, approved by the POEA on September 3, 1997, which categorically stated that “the term of this contract shall be for a period of Twelve Months,”[19] was executed even before he left for Northern Marianas on September 13, 1997, and after the AE had already been issued by Northern Marianas on June 3, 1997. Centro Project could have easily apprised him of the change. Also, the necessary amendments to the primary contract or an addendum thereto could have been easily made prior to his deployment. Undoubtedly, the term of the contract was 12 months. The AE could not be used as a valid cause for pre-terminating the employment of Naluis. His repatriation was clearly a breach of the contract of employment, for which the CA awarded to him the following money claims, to wit: a) Four (4) months salary corresponding to the unpaid portion of his contract at $520.00 (Five Hundred Twenty U.S. Dollars) per month; b) Guaranteed overtime pay at an average of thirty (30) to forty (40) hours per month in excess of straight eight (8) hours regular work schedule corresponding to the unexpired portion of four (4) months in the contract; elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60923 5/8