BURDEN OF PROOF IN LABOR CASES

In General –
The burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue.

[t]he burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue.
And in labor cases, 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.
Antiquina v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, G.R. No. 168922,

National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries–Manila Pavillion Hotel Chapter v. NLRC, G.R. No.
179402

In labor cases, as in other administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, the

quantum of proof required is substantial evidence, defined as "that 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.
MARIA VILMA G. DOCTOR and JAIME LAO, JR., vs. NII ENTERPRISES and/or MRS. NILDA C. IGNACIO (November 22, 2017G.R. No.
194001)

On unsubstantiated allegations
“Bare and unsubstantiated allegations do not constitute substantial evidence and have
no probative value.”
Lns International Manpower Services v. Armando C. Padua, Jr. (Gr. No. 179792)

“It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation,
that mere allegation is not evidence.”
Lopez v. Bodega City (Video-Disco Kitchen of the Philippines), 558 Phil. 666, 679 (2007).

Martinez v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 10, at 183

Ramoran v. Jardine CMG Life Insurance Co., Inc., 383 Phil. 83, 100 (2000).

“The burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an
issue.”
“Well-entrenched is the principle that in order to establish a case before judicial
and quasi-administrative bodies, it is necessary that allegations must be
supported by substantial evidence.”
 Frederico M. Ledesma, Jr. V. National Labor Relations Commission GR. No. 174585

Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 511, 531 (1998).

“Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.”
Philippine Air Line v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159556, 26 May 2005, 459 SCRA 236, 251.

“Petitioners claim of illegal dismissal is supported by no other than his own bare,
uncorroborated and, thus, self-serving allegations, which are also incoherent,
inconsistent and contradictory.”
“This Court has time and again stressed that allegations must be proven by
sufficient evidence. Mere allegation is not evidence.”
Ramoran v. Jardine CMG Life Insurance Co., Inc., 383 Phil. 83, 100 (2000).

On illegal dismissal
“The filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal should be taken into account
together with the surrounding circumstances of a certain case.”
Edna Abad V. Roselle Cinema, Silver Screen Corporation and Vermy Trinidad G.R. No.
141371

(On the argument that the employee would not file a case if he was not
really legally dismissed
“The substantial evidence proffered by the employer that it had not, in the first
place, terminated the employee, should not simply be ignored on the pretext that
the employee would not have filed the complaint for illegal dismissal if he had not
really been dismissed. This is clearly a non sequitur reasoning that can never
validly take the place of the evidence of both the employer and the employee.”
Rome Basay V. Hacienda Consolacio G.R. No. 175532, April 19, 2010, 618 SCRA 422.
Arc-Men Food Industries Inc. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 113721. May 7, 1997)
Petitioners’ filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal, irrespective of whether reinstatement or separation pay
was prayed for, could not by itself be the sole consideration in determining whether they have been illegally
dismissed. All circumstances surrounding the alleged termination should also be taken into account.

Rome Basay V. Hacienda Consolacio G.R. No. 175532, April 19, 2010, 618 SCRA 422.
“Respondent cannot harp on the fact that he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal in proving that he did not
abandon his post, for the filing of the said complaint does not ipso facto foreclose the possibility of
abandonment. It is not the sole indicator in determining whether or not there was desertion, and to declare
as an absolute that the employee would not have filed a complaint for illegal dismissal if he or she had not
really been dismissed is non sequitur.”

MEHITABEL, INC., vs. JUFHEL L. ALCUIZAR G.R. No. 228701-02

The Court reiterates the basic rule of evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation, that
mere allegation is not evidence. The Court also stresses that the evidence to prove the fact of the employee's
termination from employment must be clear, positive, and convincing.25 Absent any showing of an overt or
positive act proving that respondents had dismissed petitioners, the latter's claim of illegal dismissal cannot
be sustained - as the same would be self-serving, conjectural, and of no probative value.
MARIA VILMA G. DOCTOR and JAIME LAO, JR., vs. NII ENTERPRISES and/or MRS. NILDA C. IGNACIO (November 22, 2017G.R. No.
194001)