G.R. No. 116960 - BERNARDO JIMENEZ AND JOSE JIMENEZ, AS OPERATORS OF JJ’S TRUCKING, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PEDRO JUANATAS AND FREDELITO JUANATAS.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, decision is hereby issued ordering respondents JJs Trucking and/or Dr. Bernardo Jimenez to pay jointly and severally complainant Pedro Juanatas a separation pay of FIFTEEN THOUSAND FIFTY (P15,050.00) PESOS, plus attorneys fee equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the award. The complaint of Fredelito Juanatas is hereby dismissed for lack of merit." [3] On appeal filed by private respondents, the NLRC modified the decision of the labor arbiter and disposed as follows: "PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Decision of March 9, 1993 is hereby MODIFIED, to wit: 1. Complainant Fredelito Juanatas is hereby declared respondents employee and shares in (the) commission and separation pay awarded to complainant Pedro Juanatas, his father. 2. Respondent JJs Trucking and Dr. Bernardo Jimenez are jointly and severally liable to pay complainants their unpaid commissions in the total amount of Eighty Four Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Seven Pesos and 05/100 (P84,387.05). 3. The award of attorneys fees is reduced accordingly to eight thousand four hundred thirty eight pesos and 70/100 (P8,438.70). 4. The other findings stand affirmed." [4] Petitioners motion for reconsideration having been denied thereafter in public respondents resolution dated August 8, 1994, [5] petitioners have come to us in this recourse, raising for resolution the issues as to whether or not respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling (a) that private respondents were not paid their commissions in full, and (b) that respondent Fredelito Juanatas was an employee of JJs Trucking. The review of labor cases elevated to us on certiorari is confined to questions ofjurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. [6] As a rule, this Court does not review supposed errors in the decision of the NLRC which raise factual issues, because factual findings of agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions are accorded not only respect but even finality, [7] aside from the consideration that the Court is essentially not a trier of facts. However, in the case at bar, a review of the records thereof with an assessment of the facts is necessary since the factual findings of the NLRC and the labor arbiter are at odds with each other. [8] On the first issue, we find no reason to disturb the findings of respondent NLRC that the entire amount of commissions was not paid, this by reason of the evident failure of herein petitioners to present evidence that full payment thereof has been made. It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegations. Since the burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts an affirmative allegation, the plaintiff or complainant has to prove his affirmative allegation, in the complaint and the defendant or respondent has to prove the affirmative allegations in his affirmative defenses and counterclaim. Considering that petitioners herein assert that the disputed commissions have been paid, they have the bounden duty to prove that fact.