136. It is certain that this rule is reversed when there is presumption of law, dispensation or discharge of the burden of proof, situations in which this same burden falls on the opposite party. 137. Thus, in a proceeding where the party to whom the burden of proof is to be imposed complies with it, such party shall enjoy the benefit of the presumption and, as such, it will be for the counterpart to counteract the evidence produced. 138. As provided in Article 32 (4) of the Rules, the Defendant, having been duly served with the application initiating proceedings by the Applicants, failed to file its defense and did not appear at the hearing, opting for a complete default. 139. As a result, the facts alleged by the Applicants, namely, the claim of non-payment of their dues, was not challenged. 140. It is known that the general rule imposes the burden of proof on the Applicant, who must demonstrate the facts s/he alleges. 141. However, in the case of an action based on breach of contract, of a labor nature, as is the case here, there is a presumption of truthfulness in favor of the employee or servant claiming the payment of unpaid salary installments. Therefore, it would be up to the Contractor, in this case the Defendant, to take the necessary steps to prove its compliance. 142. Having failed to do so, in this case, it must be admitted that Defendant failed to make the payments now claimed by Applicants. 143. Therefore, the dispute submitted to this Court is summarized in the nonpayment by the Defendant of amounts referred to by the Applicants and due by way of allowances arising from the termination of their respective contracts. 26