6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Following the above ruling, the [respondent] is likewise not entitled to the payment of the unexpired portion of the employment contract. This Office could not exactly determine what [respondent] means when she refers to the unexpired portion of the contract. The [respondent] comes to this Office alleging that [petitioners] are still liable to the new extended contract of the employment without however presenting the said contract binding the recruitment agency as jointly and solidarily liable with the principal employer. Such a document is vital as this will prove the participation of the [petitioners] and the latter's assumption of responsibility. Without the presentation of the "extended" contract, the "unexpired portion" could not be determined. [Respondent's] claim therefore for the payment of the unexpired portion of the contract must also fail. The crux of the present controversy is whether or not [respondent] was paid her salaries during the period she worked in Korea. [Respondent] claims that she was not paid her salaries during the time she worked in Korea. [Petitioners] presented an Affidavit executed by Filipino workers who worked with [respondent] in Korea declaring that they, together with the [respondent], were paid by the foreign employer all their salaries and wages. [Petitioners and SAENCO] likewise presented vouchers showing that the [respondent] received full payment of her salaries during the time that she worked in Korea. In the pleading submitted by the [respondent], she never denied the fact that she indeed signed the vouchers showing full payment of her salaries. It becomes clear therefore that [respondent] miserably failed to destroy the evidentiary value of the vouchers presented by the [petitioners]. This Office will not dare to declare as void or incompetent the vouchers signed by the [respondent] in the absence of any evidence showing any irregularity so much so that this Office did not fail to notice the inconsistencies in the [respondent's] position paper. [Respondent's] claim for the payment of overtime pay likewise lacks merit. There was no showing that [respondent] actually rendered overtime work. Mere allegation is not sufficient to establish [respondent's] entitlement to overtime pay. It is [respondent's] obligation to prove that she actually rendered overtime work to entitle her for the payment of overtime pay.[14] In the end, the Labor Arbiter dismissed for lack of merit respondent's complaint, as well as all other claims of the parties.[15] Ruling of the NLRC Respondent appealed the Labor Arbiter's Decision before the NLRC.[16] In a Decision[17] dated May 22, 2008, the NLRC ruled in respondent's favor, reasoning that: There is sufficient evidence to establish the fact that [respondent] was not paid her regular salaries. A scrutiny of the vouchers presented shows that it elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64155 6/27