4. Burden of Proof

BURDEN OF PROOF

Concept

In a dispute over an employer-employee relationship, the party asserting a fact must support it with evidence. The existence of the relationship is essentially a question of fact. No particular form of evidence is required to prove it; competent and relevant evidence may be admitted. (Villola v. United Philippine Lines, Inc. and Fernandino T. Lising, G.R. No. 230047, 9 October 2019)¹ (Atienza v. Saluta, G.R. No. 233413, 17 June 2019)² (Lu v. Enopia, G.R. No. 197899, 6 March 2017)³

Governing provisions

In proceedings before the National Labor Relations Commission or a Labor Arbiter, court rules of evidence are not controlling. The decision-maker must use reasonable means to ascertain the facts speedily and objectively, without undue technicality and with due process. This flexibility does not dispense with the need to prove disputed facts. (Art. 221, Labor Code)⁴ (Villola)¹

For a contested termination, the Labor Code places the burden of proving a valid or authorized cause on the employer. That rule must be read with the need to establish the alleged dismissal when the employer denies that it occurred. (Art. 277, Labor Code)⁵ (Villola)¹

Requisites / Rules

• Proving the relationship: Present competent, relevant evidence of the claimed employment relationship. The inquiry is factual, and evidence need not take a prescribed form. (Lu v. Enopia)³ (Atienza v. Saluta)²
• Proving dismissal: If the employer outright denies terminating the worker, the worker must first establish the fact of dismissal. An allegation of forced resignation, without substantial evidence of threat or force, is insufficient. (Villola)¹
• Justifying dismissal: Once termination is in issue, the employer bears the burden of proving that it was for a valid or authorized cause. (Art. 277, Labor Code)⁵
• Claiming abandonment: The employer must prove a deliberate and unjustified intent to discontinue employment through overt conduct clearly showing that intent. Mere absence or failure to report for work is not enough; due process must also be observed. (Atienza v. Saluta)²
• Claiming a fixed term: The employer bears the burden of proving the validity of fixed-term employment, which is treated as an exception rather than the general rule. (Ditiangkin v. Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 246892, 21 September 2022)⁶
• Claiming money: A claimant must prove the factual basis of a monetary claim; an award cannot rest on an unproved allegation. (Villola)¹

Distinctions

Proof that a dismissal happened is distinct from proof that the dismissal was justified. In Villola, the employer denied terminating the worker, so the fact of dismissal had to be established first. The statutory burden on the employer concerns the validity of a termination; it does not, by itself, establish that a disputed termination occurred. (Villola)¹ (Art. 277, Labor Code)⁵

Key doctrines

Where the evidence in a controversy between laborer and employer gives rise to reasonable doubt, that doubt is resolved in favor of the laborer. This principle operates alongside, not in place of, the requirement to present evidence for a factual claim. (Reboso v. Shogun Shipping Co., Inc., G.R. No. 204555, 6 July 2020)⁷ Verify the case name before changing this citation: G.R. No. 204555 is Parayday v. Shogun Shipping Co., Inc. (Villola)¹

Exceptions

Although the existence of an employer-employee relationship is a factual question, conflicting factual findings among adjudicating bodies may warrant Supreme Court review and re-evaluation under the substantial evidence standard. This is not a general invitation to reweigh every factual finding. (Lu v. Enopia)³ (Atienza v. Saluta)²

Bar tip

Identify the precise disputed fact before assigning the burden: relationship, occurrence of dismissal, validity of termination, abandonment, or entitlement to a monetary claim. Do not treat a bare allegation as proof merely because labor proceedings are free from strict court evidence rules. (Lu v. Enopia)³ (Villola)¹ (Atienza v. Saluta)² (Art. 221, Labor Code)⁴