Dear Atty. Kathy,
My mother was hired by Company A for Company B, for a position abroad. When her contract ended, Company B forced her to continue working on overtime every workday. This only stopped and she was allowed to go back home when they complained to government officials. Now, my mother wants to claim her overtime pay because she was made to work for 10 hours a day. However, she only has a copy of her work schedule issued by Company B, requiring her to work from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., with a 1-hour lunch break, because Company B does not give them copies of their payslips. Will this be enough to prove my mother’s claim for overtime pay?
Kevin
□□□□□
Dear Kevin,
The general rule is that the burden shifts upon the employee to prove that he or she is entitled to overtime pay for rendering work beyond the regular working hours. Entitlement to overtime pay must first be established by proof that the overtime work was actually performed before the employee may properly claim the benefit. The burden of proving entitlement to overtime pay rests on the employee because the benefit is not incurred in the normal course of business.
Based on your narration, there is no other available evidence to prove that your mother worked for 10 hours a day, except for a copy of her work schedule from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
The Supreme Court, has noted, however, that the burden of proof for entitlement to overtime pay is sometimes impossible for an employee to discharge, especially, for overseas Filipino workers like your mother. Thus, such claims for overtime pay should not be disallowed because of the failure to substantiate, as the claim of overseas Filipino workers against foreign employers could not be subjected to same rules of evidence and procedure easily obtained by complainants whose employers are locally based.
While normally the courts would require the presentation of payrolls, daily time records and similar documents before allowing claims for overtime pay, the courts also recognize that where the separation or repatriation happened under less than ideal circumstances, as in your mother’s case, where she was even forced to work on overtime and was not immediately repatriated when her contract ended, it would be unreasonable to expect her to have any document as would prove the actual labor that she rendered for Company B.
Moreover, settled is the rule that in controversies between a worker and his or her employer, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence should be resolved in the worker’s favor.
In view of all the foregoing, subject to supervening or any other circumstance, your mother’s claim for overtime pay may be granted.
(Stephanie A. Maitim, et al., versus Teknika Skills and Trade Services Inc., et al., G.R. No. 240143, 15 January 2025)
Atty. Kathy Larios