PHILIPPINES Trends and Developments Contributed by: Clarence Darrow C Valdecantos and Gilyen Ezra Marie L Li-Nulud, ACCRALAW
ual harassment seminars. Otherwise, in the event of a labour inspection conducted by DOLE, the employer may be held liable for fines of up to PHP100,000.00 computed daily, from the issuance of the compliance order until actual compliance. An employer’s failure to fulfil its duties under the ASHA and SSA may also be determined by a labour tribunal or court, which can award damages to an aggrieved employee whose complaint for sexual harassment in the workplace was not addressed. In fact, in the 2024 case of Francheska Buban v Xerox Business (G.R. No 268399), the Supreme Court confirmed that the petitioner employee was constructively dismissed due to the hostile, offensive, and intimidating work environment perpetrated by the respondent employer when it failed to promptly and sensitively act on her complaint for sexual harassment against a superior. However, the petitioner remained employed, and therefore, there was no economic loss that would justify the payment of separation benefits and back wages. The employer was remiss in its duty to deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment and to provide procedures for the resolution or prosecution of said acts, and consequently, the Supreme Court held the employer solidarily liable with the offender for payment of damages to the petitioner. Evidentiary Rules in Money Claims Under the Labour Code, claims for the payment of salaries and benefits arising out of an employer- employee relationship may be brought before the courts within three years from the time the cause of action accrued or when payment was due. In these types of claims, the legal principle of “he who alleg - es must prove” does not instantly apply, consider - ing that accessibility over employment records, such as payrolls and remittances, that would supposedly prove payment to the employee, is exclusively within the custody and control of the employer. Thus, it is a settled labour doctrine that in cases involving non- payment of monetary claims, the employer has the burden of proving that the employees received their wages and benefits and that the same were paid in accordance with law. Regarding the type of evidence required to prove pay - ment, the Supreme Court has consistently held that
a payslip bearing the employee’s signature and an explicit acknowledgement of full compensation serves as substantial evidence of actual payment. Conversely, unsigned payslips are insufficient proof as they are mere statements of an employee’s gross income. This was emphasised in the 2025 case of Philippine Airlines, Inc. v Romeo N. Ahmee (G.R. No 221065 and No 221164), where the Supreme Court held that payroll sheets and vouchers are treated as substantial evidence of payment only if they show both the employee’s receipt of the amounts and the date or period covering such payment. More importantly, this case recognised the modern practice of automatically crediting salaries and benefits to employees’ desig - nated bank accounts, and identified three stages in a bank crediting arrangement: • the preparation of payroll by the employer; • the employer’s submission and corresponding receipt by the bank of the payroll or advisory; and • the crediting of the amounts to the employees’ bank accounts. To sufficiently refute monetary claims raised by employ - ees, it is not enough for the employer to present the payroll records prepared by its relevant officers, as in the first stage. While such documents enjoy the pre - sumption of regularity, the principle only concerns the preparation of the payroll, but not the employ - ees’ receipt of the amounts stated therein. Hence, to establish payment, the employer should also prove the existence of the second stage, where the bank already participates in the process, by submitting evidence of its submission to or receipt by the bank of the payroll or the advisory. Notably, while evidence of the third stage would certainly strengthen an employer’s case, the Court surmised that the employer, as a client of the bank, can already reasonably presume that the latter has fulfilled its obligation of depositing the amounts to the employees’ accounts and, as such, is discharged from the burden to show such evidence. Thus, at bot - tom, once the employer submits evidence of the first and second stages, the burden of proof then shifts to the employees who will have to show that their respec - tive bank accounts were not credited with any amounts during the applicable periods.
446 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook