Scribd
Upload
78 views2 pages

Excessive Payment in Labor Cases Explained

Respondents provided substantial evidence to prove that there was excess payment made due to fraudulent crediting of work that was not actually completed. This included documentary evidence from position papers showing the schemes used to unjustly advantage the complainants. While the burden of proof remains with the prosecution, the burden of evidence can shift between parties depending on the case. When a prima facie case is established, the defense must present evidence to counter or equalize the prosecution's evidence, otherwise the prosecution's evidence will stand.

Uploaded by

Tep Bontuyan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
78 views2 pages

Excessive Payment in Labor Cases Explained

Respondents provided substantial evidence to prove that there was excess payment made due to fraudulent crediting of work that was not actually completed. This included documentary evidence from position papers showing the schemes used to unjustly advantage the complainants. While the burden of proof remains with the prosecution, the burden of evidence can shift between parties depending on the case. When a prima facie case is established, the defense must present evidence to counter or equalize the prosecution's evidence, otherwise the prosecution's evidence will stand.

Uploaded by

Tep Bontuyan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Respondents provided substantial evidence

to prove that there was excess of payment.

It is an oft-repeated rule that in labor cases, as in other administrative and quasi-judicial


proceedings, 'the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence, or such amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.’ ‘The burden of
proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue’.1 The Respondents provided the
necessary quantum of evidence in required in proving that there was excessive payment to the
Complainants due to the act of fraudulently crediting works which are not due.

In the Position Paper of the Respondent, it clearly provided hard documentary evidence
showing that Limbario used fraudulent schemes to unjustly give advantage to the Complainants at
the expense of the Respondents.

Burden of proof v. burden of evidence

Burden of proof is defined in Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court as "the duty of a party to
present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of
evidence required by law."

There is no denying that in a criminal case, unless the guilt of the accused is established by proof
beyond reasonable doubt, he is entitled to an acquittal. But when the trial court denies petitioners'
motion to dismiss by way of demurrer to evidence on the ground that the prosecution had
established a prima facie case against them, they assume a definite burden. It becomes incumbent
upon petitioners to adduce evidence to meet and nullify, if not overthrow, the prima facie case
against them. 7 This is due to the shift in the burden of evidence, and not of the burden of proof as
petitioners would seem to believe.

When a prima facie case is established by the prosecution in a criminal case, as in the case at bar,
the burden of proof does not shift to the defense. It remains throughout the trial with the party upon
whom it is imposed—the prosecution. It is the burden of evidence which shifts from party to party
depending upon the exigencies of the case in the course of the trial. 8 This burden of going forward
with the evidence is met by evidence which balances that introduced by the prosecution. Then the
burden shifts back.

A prima facie case need not be countered by a preponderance of evidence nor by evidence of
greater weight. Defendant's evidence which equalizes the weight of plaintiff's evidence or puts the
case in equipoise is sufficient. As a result, plaintiff will have to go forward with the proof. Should it
happen that at the trial the weight of evidence is equally balanced or at equilibrium and
presumptions operate against plaintiff who has the burden of proof, he cannot prevail. 9

In the case at bar, the order denying petitioners' motion to dismiss, required them to present their
evidence. They refused and/or failed to do so. This justified an inference of their guilt. The inevitable

1 Jack C. Valencia v. Classique Vinyl Products Corp. ,et al.


result was that the burden of evidence shifted on them to prove their innocence, or at least, raises a
reasonable doubt as to their guilt.

You might also like