As we have explicitly ruled in Machica v. Roosevelt Service Center, Inc.:

The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; thus, petitioners were burdened to prove their allegation that respondents dismissed them from their employment.  It must be stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive and convincing. The rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no application here because the respondents deny having dismissed the petitioners.  (Emphases supplied.)

Verily, petitioner did not present any clear, positive or convincing evidence in the present case to support his claims.  Indeed, he never presented any evidence at all other than his own self-serving declarations.  We must bear in mind the legal dictum that, “he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove.”

About Erineus

Born on December 28, 1965, Surallah, South Cotabato, Southern Mindanao, Philippines.
This entry was posted in Evidence, Labor Law, Legal Maxim and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s