G.R. No. 191823 - DEE JAY'S INN AND CAFE AND/OR MELINDA FERRARIS, VS. MA. LORINA RAÑESES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it is the employee that bears the burden of proving that in tact he was dismissed An unsubstantiated allegation on the part of the employee cannot stand as the same offends due process . " (De Paul / King Philip Customs Tailor, et al vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 129824, Marc;h 10, 1999) Underscoring Ours. The [respondent] did not controvert the [petitioners'] categorical denial and more, she failed to demonstrate the burden. As such, the allegations of the [respondent] to the effect that she was dismissed remains (sic) gratuitous. In fact the High Court in the same vein said: " The burden of proof lies upon who asserts it, not upon who denies, since by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof of it. " (Sevillana vs. LT. International Corp., et al., POEA-NLRC Case No. L-88-12-1048, 26 March 1991; Aguilar vs. Maning International Corp., et al., POEA-NLRC Case No. L-88-08-728, October 8, 1990). In the case at Bench, the positive act and/or the unequivocal act of termination is the Factum Probandum which the [respondent] miserably failed to demonstrate. [12] The Labor Arbiter also pointed out a procedural defect in respondent's charge of illegal dismissal against petitioners: Besides, the [respondent] did not aver illegal dismissal as the same was not pleaded in her verified complaint. She cannot be allowed to prove the same. The rule is clear that the "verified position papers shall cover only those claims and causes of action raised in the complaint x x x " (Rule V, Section 4, Par. 2, Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, as Amended). Incidentally, there is no prooflinking to the allegation of dismissal. [13] The Labor Arbiter also noted that petitioner DJIC, as a registered Barangay Micro Business Enterprise (BMBE), was exempted from the coverage of the Minimum Wage Law. The Labor Arbiter decreed in the end: WHEREFORE, premises laid, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint in the instant case for lack of.cause of action and for not being impressed with merit. However, [petitioners] are hereby ordered, jointly and severally, to pay [respondent] the amount of Five Hundred Pesos (Php500.00) representing 13 th month pay differential. [14] At around the same time, Moonyeen lodged before the NLRC CAU XII a complaint against petitioners for unpaid overtime pay, docketed as RAB 12-01-00031-05. Later on, Moonyeen similarly contended that she was illegally dismissed by petitioners and demanded the payment of her salary differential, holiday premium pay, service incentive leave pay, 13 th month pay, and moral damages. [15] The Labor Arbiter, in a Decision dated February 20, 2006, subsequently dismissed Moonyeen's complaint, also finding that Moonyeen miserably failed to demonstrate the positive or unequivocal act of termination of her employment; but petitioners were liable for underpayment of Moonyeen's 13 th month pay in the amount of P500.00. Respondent and Moonyeen timely filed their respective appeals before the NLRC