a. Burden of Proof

Employer has burden of proof in alleging unfair labor practice

Party alleging unfair labor practice has the burden of proof

Furthermore, basic is the principle that good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same. By imputing bad faith to the actuations of CAB, CABEU-NFL has the burden of proof to present substantial evidence to support the allegation of unfair labor practice. [Central Azucarera De Bais Employees Union - NFL v. Central Azucarera De Bais, Inc. G.R. No. 186605, (2010)]

Proof of Hours Worked

Entitlement to overtime pay must first be established by proof that said overtime work was actually performed, before an employee may avail of said benefit. (Lagatic v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121004, 1998)

Burden of Proof: When an employer alleges that his employee works less than the normal hours of employment as provided for in the law, the employer bears the burden of proving his allegation with clear and satisfactory evidence. (Prangan v. NLRC, G.R. No. 126569, 1998)

Employer that filed petition for revocation of union’s registration has burden of proving fraud and misrepresentation

YTPI, being the one which filed the petition for the revocation of YEU’s registration, had the burden of proving that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation. YTPI had the burden of proving the truthfulness of its accusations — that YEU fraudulently failed to remove Pineda’s signature from the organizational documents and that YEU fraudulently misrepresented that it conducted an election of officers.[Yokohama Tires Philippines, Inc. v. Yokohama Employees Union, G.R. No. 163532, (2010)]

Proof of good faith and fair and reasonable criteria to substantiate redundancy

• New staffing pattern;
• Feasibility studies / proposal on the viability of the newly created positions;
• Job description; and
• Approval by the management of the restructuring (General Milling Corporation v. Violeta L. Viajar, G.R. No. 181738, 2013)

“To Prevent Losses”; Proof Required

The phrase “to prevent losses” means that retrenchment or termination from the service of some employees is authorized to be undertaken by the employer sometime before the losses anticipated are actually sustained or realized. Actual losses need not set in prior to retrenchment (Cajucom VII v. TPI Phil. Cement Corp., G.R. No. 149090, 2005).

The employer bears the burden of proving the existence of the imminence of substantial losses with clear and satisfactory evidence that there are legitimate business reasons justifying a retrenchment. (Mount Carmel Employees Union v. Mount Carmel College, G.R. No. 187261, 2014)

Burden of Proof

In illegal dismissal cases, the onus of proving that the employee was not dismissed or, if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal, rests on the employer, failure to discharge which would mean that the dismissal is not justified and, therefore, illegal. (Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines, G.R. No. 178524, 2009)

Guiding Principles on Notice and Hearing in Termination/Dismissal cases

Any decision taken by the employer shall be without prejudice to the right of the worker to contest the validity or legality of his dismissal by filing a complaint with the regional branch of the NLRC.

The burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest with the employer.

The Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment may suspend the effects of the termination pending resolution of the dispute in the event of a prima facie finding by the appropriate official of the DOLE before whom such dispute is pending that the termination may cause a serious labor dispute or is in implementation of a mass lay-off.

In cases of dismissal, employer has the burden of proof to show that the dismissal falls under the just and authorized causes. (Tolentino v. PLDT, G.R. No. 160404, 2005)