This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-02-18 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Agabon focused on the fourth situation when dismissal was for just or authorized cause, but due process was not observed.[71] Agabon involved a dismissal for just cause, and this court awarded P30,000.00 as nominal damages for the employer's non-compliance with statutory due process.[72] Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot[73] involved a dismissal for authorized cause, and this court awarded P50,000.00 as nominal damages for the employer's non-compliance with statutory due process.[74] The difference in amounts is based on the difference in dismissal ground.[75] Nevertheless, this court has sound discretion in determining the amount based on the relevant circumstances.[76] In De Jesus v. Aquino,[77] this court awarded P50,000.00 as nominal damages albeit the dismissal was for just cause.[78] | |||||
|
2014-06-30 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even where the employee must allege nonpayment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the employer to prove payment, rather than on the employee to prove nonpayment. The reason for the rule is 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 employee but in the custody and absolute control of the employer. Since in the case at bar petitioner company has not shown any proof of payment of the correct amount of salary, holiday pay and 13th month pay, we affirm the award of Madriaga's monetary claims.[44] (Emphases supplied) | |||||