4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly who paid the fare is subject of conflicting allegations; and the Travel Exit Pass, the same being a document of POEA; are proof of the contents thereof - the relevant fact in so far as this case is concerned, is the agreed salary of complainant, $370.00 - not as to whether or not the complainant was underpaid. Thus, the primary evidence from which the Administrator drew his conclusions in the assailed decision is the affidavit of complainant where the affiant was not subjected to cross examination to determine whether or not he is telling the truth and the application (mis-application) of the general principles of law. Consequently, we find it disconcerning to stamp Our imprimatur of approval in the assailed decision considering (the) quantum of evidence presented vis-a-vis (the) amount involved in the award. Firstly, I.T. (Int'l) Corp. is a recruitment agency. It is not in the level of the employer itself. At the (sic) most it is an agent of the employer. The application, therefore, of the so called `common knowledge that in employer to employee relationship, the former is the one who keep records of payments,' and 'in a better position to present the same' in the present case is akin to stretching the said principle to ridiculous proportions. Both appellant and complainant-appellee stand an (sic) equal footing. No presumptions arises. They both do not have the employment records of the complainant. More serious inquiry should have been resorted to such as the instrument of cross examinating the witnesses presented by the parties, or even the use of clarificatory questions by the Office a quo to the witnesses would have shed light as to who among the parties is telling the truth. But records show that there is none. Secondly, the POEA Administrator heavily relied upon the principle of law that in illegal termination cases, the burden of proof lies on the employer, and the employer not having presented sufficient evidence to justify the dismissal ergo the dismissal is illegal. The POEA Administrator misread the law. It is only when the employer admits the dismissal, which is not so in this case, that the burden to present proof that the dismissal is for cause hangs on the shoulders of the employer. Thirdly, considering that the payment of the PAL ticket is at issue and there being no other evidence presented, except their respective bare self-serving and conflicting allegations We find no sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that one party paid for the ticket. Basic in this jurisdiction is that he who asserts a right must prove it. In labor disputes, the evidence mandated by law are these relevant evidence which a reasonable and unbiased mind would accept to support a conclusion. Failing to do this, We find no basis to the award. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision is set aside and a new one entered dismissing this one. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52120 3/12