Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

National Labor Relations Commission
National Capital Region
Quezon City

REYNALDO C. CABANAS, ET AL.,

Complainants,

-versus- Hon. Labor Arbiter RONALDO R. DOCTOR

NLRC NCR CASE NO. 05-08165-18.

CJN GARMENTS
Respondents.
X-------------------------------------------------X

POSITION PAPER
(FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

Respondent, CJN GARMENTS, represented herein by the individual respondent

and authorized representative , CATHERINE L. CRUZ, in the above-entitled case,
most respectfully submit their POSITION PAPER and avers the following:

I. PARTIES

The respondent company, CJN GARMENTS is a duly organized business in

accordance with the Philippine Laws , engaged in sub-contracting of sewing and
other related services. Respondents may be served with summons, pleadings,
orders and decisions of this Honorable Office at No. 341 Libis Talisay St., Caloocan
City.
On the other hand, the complainants, REYNALDO C. CABANAS, ET AL., are
NOT employees of the respondent and may be served with summons, orders and
decisions of this honorable office through their counsel or in the address as stated
by the lead complainant in their complaint.

II. NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT

1
 This is a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages,
underpayment-overtime pay, underpayment-13 th month pay, Non-payment of
holiday pay, non-payment of service incentive leave pay , non-payment ECOLA, ,
Moral Damages, Exemplary damages and Attorney’s fees.

III. PREPARATORY STATEMENTS

The Supreme Court held in the long line of decisions that the burden of
evidence is shifted to the complainants to prove the existence of employment
relationship when the existence thereof is being questioned and disputed by the
respondent like in this proceedings.
In this case employment relationship is absent and therefore the complainants
are not entitled to labor standards law and other benefits as shown by the facts
of the case.

IV. FACTS OF THE CASE

Respondent company is a small enterprises engaged in sub-contracting of
sewing services and registered as Barangay Micro Business Enterprise (BMBE) ,
See Annex-1 for BMBE Certificate of Registration.
Under RA 9178 , otherwise known as Barangay Micro Business Enterprise ,
the law exempted the respondent company from minimum wage law , tax
incentives and other benefits under the law.
The two complainants are not employees of the respondent. On a daily
basis, they were applying as sewers but were not hired. Instead, they offered their
services whenever extra sewers are needed due to rush job orders and being paid
per piece everyday on the same day.
Complainants, by way of back checking, are known to be professional
complainants as confirmed by the circles in the industry. Thus, respondent is very
careful in giving them work only for the day and whenever exigency of business
dictates.
2
 It is clear to them that they were not employees of the respondent and
there are not controlled as they can engage with other companies or offer their
services freely to others.

Sometime in May 2018 , the two complainants demanded that they should
be considered regular employees considering that they worked as Extra for few
months already. Respondent told them that we cannot hire them since we only
have few job orders from few clients. They alleged that according to the
pronouncement of President Duterte, all extra-workers being contractual must be
regularized and must put a stop to ENDO. In fact, they demanded to be paid
minimum wage per day and change their payment from per piece to per day.

Considering that they are not employees of the respondent, they were
advised to offer their services to other companies.. This suggestion elicit the ire of
the complainants and the latter got mad and threatened respondent that to file
labor complaint and according to them we will pay big sum of money for allegedly
illegally terminating them.

Despite unfounded and baseless, complainants filed the instant complaint

and after SENA proceedings did not materialize , a formal complaint was filed in
which after two (2) mandatory conferences parties did not reach amicable
settlement , hence , parties are directed by this Honorable Office to submit
position paper.

IV.ISSUES

3
 1. Whether or not the respondent is liable to the alleged money claims of
complainant under labor standards law? and

2. Whether or not the respondent is liable for the illegal dismissal , damages
and attorney’s fees.

V. DISCUSSIONS AND ARGUMENTS

1. Whether or not the respondent

is liable to the alleged money claims
of complainants under labor standards law.

The Supreme Court held in the long line of decisions that the burden of
evidence is shifted to the complainants to prove the existence of employment
relationship when the existence thereof is being questioned and disputed by the
respondent in this proceedings. The management is fully aware of its
responsibility under the labor standards law such as payment of minimum wage,
and other wage related benefits . However in the case of the complainants, they
were not employees of the respondent and their claims for monetary claims
are put to naught absence of employer-employee relationship as they were
never been employee of the respondent.

Respondent maintained that in order that labor standards laws may apply,
employment relationship must exist first between the parties. The Supreme
Court in determining the existence of employment relationship, the four fold test
must be present:

1. The power to hire an employee; 2. The power to fire or terminate an

employee; 3. The economic indicator for the payment of wages; and 4. The
power of control, the last and the most important test or indicator which refers
to the control as to the manner and method by which the worker performs his
work .

4
 With due respect, all the tests or indicators are absent in this case insofar as
respondents are concerned ( Francisco Vs. NLRC G.R. No.170087, August 31,
2006). The respondent companies did not hire , terminate, pay wages of
complainants and never exercise control as to the manner and method by which
the complainant performs his work. Thus , monetary claims, such as
underpayment of wages , underpayment-overtime pay, underpayment of 13 th
month pay, Non-payment of holiday pay, non-payment of service incentive leave
pay , non-payment ECOLA, under the Labor Standards Law cannot be applied and
awarded absence of employment relationship.

2. Whether or not the respondent is liable

for the illegal suspension/illegal dismissal ,
damages and attorney’s fees.

Respondent have no power to terminate the complainants as they were never

been employees of the respondent . Corollary, respondent have no power to
suspend or terminate complainant as respondent have no power of control over
the complainants.

In the case of the power of control, the respondent obviously cannot exercise
control on the complainants being a free lance extra-sewers except as to the
results thereof. However, the respondent exercises some degree of control over
the complainants insofar as the desired result is concerned. In MERALCO vs.
Benamira, et al, G.R. No. 145271, July 14, 2005, the court decreed:

“Not all rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party
indicate that the latter is an employee of the former. Rules which
serve as general guidelines towards the achievement of the
mutually desired results are not indicative of the power of
control.”(Emphasis supplied).

5
 There is no single piece of evidence to support any allegations of illegal
dismissal that would establish the employer-employee relationship
between the respondent and the complainants .

Complainants failed to discharge the required quantum of evidence to

establish their claim for illegal dismissal as the fact of dismissal is also absent in
this case. Likewise, no iota of evidence of illegal dismissal is ever presented by
the complainants.

Finally, claim for moral and exemplary damages with attorney’s fees is of no
moment and misplaced considering that bad faith or malice is patently absence
in the instant case.

VI. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Office that the complaint be dismissed for absence of employment
relationship .

Other reliefs , just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise
prayed for.

03 July 2018, Caloocan City for Quezon City, Philippines.

CATHERINE L. CRUZ
Manager
Copy Furnished:
REYNALDO C. CABANAS, ET AL.,
Complainants
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

6
 I, CATHERINE L. CRUZ, Manager of CJN ENTERPRISES with office addresses at
No. 341 Libis Talisay St., Caloocan City., after being sworn under oath in
accordance with law do hereby depose and say that:

1. I am the Manager of the CJN ENTERPRISES with business office at No.

341 Libis Talisay St., Caloocan City No. 341 Libis Talisay St., Caloocan City;

2. I am the Manager and authorized to sign the pleadings and position

paper of the respondent companies;

3. I caused the preparation of the foregoing position paper;

4. I attest to the truth of the factual statements contained in the foregoing

position paper to the best of my personal knowledge and belief; and

5. I certify that I have not filed any similar case with any other court , Quasi
judicial body or government agency. Neither I filed any other similar
complaint involving the same parties and the same cause of action
before any other Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) of the Honorable
Commission.

03 July 2018, Caloocan City for Quezon City, Philippines.

CATHERINE L. CRUZ
Manager

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME A NOTARY PUBLIC, the affiant in the

above entitled case as one of the respondents, known to me and to me known to
be the same person who executed the foregoing pleading position paper by
exhibiting his TIN NO.____ dated __________ at ____________.

NOTARY PUBLIC

7
Book No___
Page no.___
Document NO.____
Series of 2018