Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region Arbitration Branch
Quezon City

JAMES T. SOCORRO,
Complainant,

NLRC-RAB Case No.

NCR-07-11054-11

- versus Hon. Labor Arbiter

ROMELITA N. RIOFLORIDO
UNISPORT MARKETING CORP., JOSE
YU, ELEANOR YU-OCAMPO,
Respondents.
x ------------------------------------------------------- x
R E PLY
COMPLAINANT, through the undersigned counsels and to this Honorable Office, most
respectfully submits this Reply to Respondents Position Paper

1. Respondents alleged in their position paper that Complainant was receiving quite a
comfortable compensation package of P53, 000/month prior to severance of his employment.
While Complainant admits such an amount he receives as his monthly salary from UNISPORT,
he begs to contend that the compensation is nowhere near being comfortable. Taking into account
the fact that Complainant basically structured and established the initial operation of UNISPORT,
until such time that it reached its stature and position in the market, the amount he is getting as
monthly pay is not as much as he deserves;
2.
In addition, it is bears emphasizing that Complainants work does not only include simple
task of procuring sales in a limited area and market. When Benjie Valenzuela, sales manager of Luzon,
resigned back in 2009, he was the one who took over his place and cover the Luzon market for sales. In
the coming year of 2010, when the sales manager of Visayas also left UNISPORT, Complainant was also
disposed off to replace the position in the Visayas market. This goes to show only that while Complainant
was backing up and covering market areas of Luzon and Visayas, which supposedly should be filled-in by
two (2) different managers, he was actually holding three (3) positions at one time, yet, his salary was
nailed to P53,000.00. Respondents now had the audacity to call Complainants salary comfortable;
3.
Complainant strongly denies that he insisted in resigning out of UNISPORT. In support
of their theory that Complainant did so voluntarily, they argued that the resignation letter was made in
Complainants own handwriting; that he applied for employment clearance17; and that he surrendered all
office tools and gadgets issued to him by UNISPORT.
4.
First, the fact that Complainant applied for an employment clearance, does not ipso facto
conclude that the resignation was freely made. In fact the Release and Quitclaim form attached thereto
was never filled-out nor signed by Complainant. Complainant was left without any choice but to apply for
a clearance considering that he was told that he can only get the payment of his due commission and
unpaid salaries after the completion of his clearance;

5.
Second, he returned the issued laptop and mobile phones as he deemed it appropriate
considering that these things were not his own but of the company. There is just no reason for
Complainant to withhold the same. Third, while the resignation letter is indeed written in Complainants
own handwriting, the same does not at all paint a picture of voluntary resignation;
6.
Complainant firmly reiterates that the execution of said letter was undertaken under
relentless compulsion and pressure coming from Respondent Eleanor Ocampo. To start with, the
resignation letter was prepared in front and in the very presence of Ocampo. She was practically directing
Complainant as regards what his letter of resignation should contain. Even the date appearing in the letter
suggests a clear notion that someone was directing him the things ought to be written therein. The letter
was initially dated July 1, 2011, but what could Complainant be possibly thinking when he changed the
effectivity of his resignation to June 30 if not that someone actually ordered him to do so, and, when
complainant is fully aware that resignation must be made with at least 30 days prior notice to his
employer;
7.
Again Complainant was required to draft a resignation letter right there and then with the
false promise of paying his commissions at the soonest possible time. If Respondents truly intended to
give Complainant what is due him, why is it that to date not a single centavo was paid to him? Worse, he
is even being demanded to pay the loan he supposedly owe UNISPORT. And, although Complainant
admits that he has an existing loan obligation with the Respondent company, is that the right treatment
that should be accorded to someone who has practically spent 13 years of his best life to establish,
develop and improve UNISPORT. Complainant will never deny his loan obligation, but what truly hurts
him is that it now appears that Respondents had totally discounted and disacknowledged Complainants
worth and contribution to the company by shoving off to his face that he is not deserving of anything, not
even compassion;
8.
Complainant was constructively dismissed by Respondents. He was thrown with
overwhelming circumstances prompting him to feel that he has no place in the company. The following
are but just of the particulars and conditions which eventually constrained Complainant to let go of his
employment;
a.
Memorandum issued in 2008 directed against the Complainant although depicted
as if meant for every and all employees notice;
b.
Complainant was held for days inside Respondent Ocampos office where he was
verbally pressured and psychologically stressed out by respondent;
c.
Email (Annex F) dated June 14, 2011 sent by Respondent Ocampo urging him to
explain the drop in sales when she knew all along that the very problem was the design she
herself chose for the products;
d.
Email (Annex G) dated June 15, 2011, Respondent Ocampo declared her ill-will
against Complainant by stating
WE WILL RETIRE HIM ;
e.
Email (Annex H) dated June 15, 2011, sent by Respondent Ocampo to everyone
with words like; decided to lessen accounts of jts xxx (referring to James T. Socorro);
f.
June 16, 2011 Respondent Ocampo verbally told Complainant to just resign
and take a rest and that they will just give him his commissions;
g.
Email (Annex I) sent by Respondent Ocampo inciting other individuals to go
against Complainant;
h.
to resign;

Resignation Letter is in itself a proof that Complainant was directed and forced

i.

Respondent Ocampo after forcing Complainant to resign, by means of deception,

made it appear that Complainant would be receiving something when in truth and in fact,
Respondent had really no intention to do so;
9.
There is no truth that Complainant willingly wanted to separate himself from UNISPORT
and that he insisted to resign. The animosity of Respondent Ocampo against Complainant, as she
exhibited in various emails19, sent to various employees, would evidently disclose her ulterior motive of
putting Complainant under extreme condition of stress until such time he was forced to resign. On this
matter, Respondent Ocampo was successful.
10.
As regards the claim of Respondents for payment of Complainants loan obligation, while
admittedly the same in fact is true; Respondents cannot just automatically deduct the same against his
13th month pay and unpaid commissions. There is no agreement, whether verbal or written, no contract
was ever entered into by Complainant with Respondents allowing them to deduct automatically the
employees loan from those that are due him under the law. Since no notice was ever given him, this is
completely a violation of Complainants right to due process. If Respondents want to recover
Complainants loan obligation, there is an appropriate forum for that. It is wrong to muddle such issue in
this controversy as the same should not in any manner affect Complainants right granted by the
Constitution and labor laws;
11.
Lastly, Complainant emphasizes that it is a horn-book doctrine that the courts in deciding
cases between labor and employer, they should be guided by the time-honored principle that if doubt
exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be
tilted in favor of the latter. The rule in controversies between a laborer and his master distinctly states that
doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing, should be
resolved in the formers favor20;
12. Considering that Complainant was indeed constructively illegally dismissed, he is entitled to
be paid his backwages, unpaid commission, moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees and separation
pay in lieu of reinstatement;

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Office that after
due consideration of this case, judgment be rendered declaring Complainant constructively illegally
dismissed and order Respondents to be jointly and severally liable to pay his backwages, separation pay,
unpaid commissions, damages and attorneys fees.
Praying for such other relief just and equitable under the premises.
Pasig City for Quezon City, 06 October 2011.

JAWID LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Complainant
Unit 910 Antel Global Corporate Center
No. 3 Doa Julia Vargas Avenue,
Ortigas CBD, Pasig City
Tel Nos. 782-42-97 / 687-5363
Mobile Nos. 0918-9115853 / 09328827435
Email Add.
counsellor12@rocketmail.com

By:

ARIEL GENARO GARCIA JAWID

PTR No. 10113456; 01.04.11;
Las Pias City
IBP Lifetime Member No. 01904
Roll No. 39314
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0001196;
01.19.11

CHATO ANCHETA CABIGAS

PTR No. A-1142858; 01.05.11;
Taguig City
IBP No. 858976; 03.31.11; Makati City
Roll No. 58436
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0002307;
08.03.11
Copy Furnished
UNISPORT MARKETING CORP.
JOSE YU, ELEANOR YU-OCAMPO
Respondents
497 President Quirino Avenue, Ext.,
Corner Zulueta St., Paco,
Manila, NCR 1007