Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

________________________________
Complainants;

-- versus -- NLRC NCR CASE NO. ______________

_________________________________,
Respondents.

x-------------------------x

POSITION PAPER

RESPONDENTS, through undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Office,

respectfully state that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT
Workers who are dismissed for the commission of a crime against their employer and
the latter’s customers/clients, after being given sufficient opportunity to explain their side,
cannot in any manner be considered illegally dismissed. Nay, their dismissal is in fact called
for!
Article 282 of the Labor Code expressly provides that an employer may terminate the
services of any employee for serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual
neglect of his duties, commission of a crime and analogous cases. And when that worker is
given sufficient opportunity to explain his side or defend himself in an administrative
investigation but his explanation failed to controvert the overwhelming evidence against him,
he may be validly terminated by the employer.
“Social justice cannot be permitted to be the refuge of scoundrels any more than
equity be an impediment to the punishment of the guilty. xxx This great policy of our
Constitution is not meant for the protection of those who have proved they are not worthy of
it, like the workers who have tainted the cause of labor with the blemishes of their own
character.” (Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. NLRC et al, G.R. No. 80609, 23
August 1988; Telefunken Semi-conductors Employees Union-FFW vs. Court of Appeals, G. R.
Nos. 143013-14, 18 Dec 2000)
THE PARTIES

1. Complainant _____________________ is of legal age, Filipino, single and with

residence address at 998 C. San Antonio St., Tondo, Manila.
2. Complainant Jerry _____________ (_____________ for brevity) is of legal age,
Filpino, single and with residence address at __________________________________
3. Complainant Ranulfo _____________ (_____________ for brevity) is of legal
age, Filipino, single and with residence address at _____________________________ All three
complainants may be served with the orders, summons and other legal processes of this
Honorable Office at their respective above-given residence addresses or thru their counsel on
record, should they engage any.
4. Respondent _____________ ________________________ (_____________
BUSINESS for brevity) is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing in accordance
with law which is engaged in Business Process Outsourcing with business address at No.
_______________________________. Respondent is the President of _____________
Business. Respondents may be served with the orders, summons and other legal processes of
this Honorable Office thru their counsel, Westwood Law with office address at Suite 1004,
Atlanta Center, Annapolis St., Greenhills, San Juan City.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ANTECEDENTS
5. Complainants are ex-employees of _____________ BUSINESS wherein they were
employed, as as such were assigned and stationed at the __________________________)
which is situated near the Navotas Fish Port area, Navotas City. _____________ served as
supervisor while _____________ and _____________ are his subordinates.
6. As an employer, _____________ BUSINESS has the duty and obligation to see to
it that the contracted project is done inside the _____________ Navotas Plant strictly in
accordance with the agreed specifications of _____________ and its customers, observing
utmost care and diligence and using all the machineries and facilities provided by
_____________.
7. That sometime on 19 August 2007, several expensive metal parts attached to
the Small Meat Grinder Machine at _____________ Plant were discovered missing and
nowhere to be found. As a result, the operation of the company in so far as the use of such
machine grinder was put to a halt and hiatus for four (4) days. As a result, _____________
failed to deliver its quota production to some of its customers, including Wendys and
Monterey, thereby endangering the contract of the respondent _____________ to its client
_____________;
8. _____________ notified _____________ BUSINESS of the incident and ordered
the latter to do the necessary replacement of the missing grinder machine parts, and apply
disciplinary actions against its erring employees of face the sanction of contract termination.
_____________ also threatened to charge _____________ for whatever compensatory
damages as well as penalties and charges that its customers may charge for its failure to
delivery its quota on time. Copy of _____________’s letter dated 22 August 2007 is
attached hereto as Annex “A”.
9. _____________ BUSINESS had no choice but to procure new materials from
VARIWIDE Enterprise on 23 August 2007 at the cost of P68,000.00to replace the said missing
machine grinder parts. Some of the irreplaceable machine part was in fact fabricated to the
cost of P10,000.00. In total, the nominal amount alone of the loss and replacement of the
machine grinder parts is P78,000.00. Copies of the VARIWIDE Enterprise quotation and official
voucher over the replaced machine parts and installation are attached hereto as Annexes “B”,
“C” and “D”.
10. Consequently, _____________ BUSUNESS created an Investigation Committee
which was co-chaired by ____________________ (Human Resource Manager) and
_________________________ (Plant Manager) to investigate the matter. The committee
inspected the _____________ Plant, notified and convened all the employees who were on
duty at the time of the crime incident and conducted an thorough investigation from 21
August 2007 up to 15 September 2007.
11. Upon initial investigation, ______________________, one of _____________’s
men, disclosed and admitted that he witnessed _____________, _____________ and
_____________ talking about their extra-ordinary interests in the value of the machine
grinder parts at _____________ Navotas Plant at around 6:00 A.M. of 19 August 2007. The
discussion revolved on an insidious and scheming plan to steal the said machine parts from
_____________ Plaint and thereafter sell them at a handsome price, for them to appropriate
its proceeds. Copy of the “Sinumpaang Salaysay” dated 10 September 2007 of
__________________ executed before the Navotas City Prosecutor’s Office, wherein a crime
for Qualified Theft and Malicious Mischief was filed by _____________ BUSINESS against herein
complainants, is attached hereto as Annex “E”.
12. This statement of ______________________ was corroborated by the statement
of ______________________, a cleaning crew, who admitted that _____________ instructed
him to throw away the parts of the grinder machine at the garbage bin for reasons he did not
know. _____________ being his line leader, ________________- felt obliged to follow and
_____________ got away with his act. Copy of the “Sinumpaang Salaysay” of
____________________ executed before the Navotas City Prosecutor’s Office, wherein a
crime for Qualified Theft and Malicious Mischief was filed by _____________ against herein
complainants, is attached hereto as Annex “F”.
13. True enough, the individual Daily Time Records of complainants
_____________, _____________ and _____________ showed that they were on duty on August
18-19, 2007, at the time of the crime incident, as in fact they logged in around 7 P.M. and
logged out around 7:00 to 7:34 A.M, the following day. Copies of the complainants’ Daily Time
Records for the month of August 2007 are attached hereto as Annexes “G”, “H” and “I”.
14. Acting on the investigation report, _____________ BUSINESS issued a memo to
_____________, being the supervisor in charge at the period of the incident, as well as to
_____________ and _____________, ordering to explain what actually occurred and why they
should not be made accountable for the loss of the said machine grinder parts. They were
also placed under preventive suspension during the period of investigation. Copy of the
separate memos to each complainant dated 21 August 2007 is attached hereto as Annexes
“J”, “K” and “L”.
15. Complainants’ individual explanation to the said memo did not persuade the
_____________ BUSINESS investigation committee and the same left much to be desired. Copy
of complainants’ letters of explanation are attached hereto as Annexes “M”, “N” and “O”.
16. The investigation committee continued their tasks from August 21 to
September 15, 2007, determined to get to the bottom of things as to who are the principal,
accomplice and party accessories to the stealing of _____________ machine grinder plate.
Finally, on September 15, the Investigation Committee finally concluded that there is
substantial evidence linking the three men, _____________, _____________ and
_____________, to the crime incident at the _____________ Plant in Navotas City.
17. Thus, the management of _____________ BUSINESS ordered their dismissal
from the service, with forfeiture of benefits, based on just cause, such as stealing valuable
property of _____________, malicious mischief and destroying the trust of the company
reposed upon them. Copies of the notice of termination to each complainant are attached
hereto as Annexes “P”, “Q” and “R”.
18. Unknown to respondents, complainants filed the instant complaint on 31 August
2007 alleging the grounds for regularization, non-payment of salaries and service incentive
leave in their complaint. But before or during the course of the arbitration proceedings, they
filed an amended complaint for illegal dismissal and backwages.
19. Thereafter the mandatory proceedings ensued, but the parties did not reach a
point for amicable settlement, as herein respondents would not want to withdraw the
criminal complaint filed against herein complainants;
20. Thus, on 03 October 2007, the parties were directed by this Honorable Office
to submit their respective position papers simultaneously today. Hence, this Position Paper.

ISSUES
I.
WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANTS WERE TERMINATED FROM
EMPLOYMENT ON JUST CAUSE/ VALID GROUNDS?

II.
WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANTS’ TERMINATION WAS EFFECTED
WITH DUE PROCESS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW?

III
WHETHER OR NOT CO-RESPONDENT ROMEO _____________
BEING THE PRESIDENT OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY, IS
RIGHTFULLY IMPLEADED AS A RESPONDENT IN THIS LABOR
CASE.

IV
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS, BY WAY OF COUNTER-
CLAIM, SHOULD BE AWARDED WITH DAMAGES TAKING INTO
ACCOUNT THE UNFOUNDED CLAIMS OF HEREIN COMPLAINANTS
WHICH CAUSED DAMAGE TO HEREIN RESPONDENTS NOT TO
MENTION EXTREME PREJUDICE AND INJURY TO ITS NAME AND
BUSINESS OPERATION

DISCUSSION/ ARGUMENTS
I. RESPONDENTS HAVE VALID GROUNDS TO
TERMINATE THE SERVICES OF COMPLAINANTS ON
ACCOUNT OF THE CRIME THEY COMMITTED AGAINST
THE INTERESTS OF RESPONDENTS AND ITS CLIENT.
 It is respectfully submitted that, based on the records, respondents have terminated
the services of complainants on just grounds because they committed a crime at the
_____________ Navotas Plant, which is completely against and prejudicial, nay greatly
damaging, to the interests of respondents, as their employer, and its client.
In a lone line of cases, the Supreme Court has time and again ruled that the
commission of a crime by an employee against his employer is a just ground warranting his
dismissal, vis:
“Theft of properties belonging to a customer of the employer,
coupled with acts of overcharging of customers constitute sufficient reasons
for termination of employment.” (San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC et al, G.
R. No. 70177, 25 June 1986)

“Theft by the employee of a tire manufacturer of wool flannel swabs

which he should have used in his work as a tire builder warrants his
dismissal.” (Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of the Philippines vs. Lariosa et
al., G.R. No. 70479, 27 February 1997)

The Investigation Committee has good reasons to believe that complainants are the
ones who perpetrated the crime at the _____________ plant based on documentary and
testimonial evidence presented during the investigation process conducted from 21 August to
15 September 2007, copies which were attached as annexes to this Position Paper.
Primarily, it was established that when the machine grinder parts were found missing
and stolen on 19 August 2007, it was _____________ (as supervisor) and his men,
_____________ and _____________, who were on duty based on their Daily Time Records for
August 2007. As such, _____________ is obligated to ensure that not only the job is done at
his key area of responsibility, but also that all machines, facilities and company properties
are kept well maintained, functioning and in order. Any event or scenario to the contrary, the
responsibility and liability rest on his shoulder. This as _____________ served under the sole
trust and confidence of respondents.
“A district sales supervisor of a company made it appear that empty
wooden cases (shells) of soft drinks were returned by customers to whom
cash refunds were allegedly given, when in fact these shells were those
which were condemned and destroyed upon his orders. In this way, he was
able to raise money for himself by pocketing the refunds. His dismissal for
loss of confidence is in order.” (San Miguel Corporation vs. The Deputy
Minister of Labor and Employment, G.R. Nos. L-61232-33, 29 December 1983)

Secondly, Villanueva and Bosico, the plant workers who were also on duty at the time
of the incident, positively identified the three complainants as the ones who perpetrated the
crime at the _____________ plant. These witnesses in fact narrated how _____________ used
his position of power and influence to commit such insidious and malicious act, despite the
generosity of _____________ BUSINESS to him over the years.
Thirdly, the letter of _____________ to _____________ BUSINESS, quotation and
official voucher from VARIWIDE Enterprises and the various memos of the Investigation
Committee to complainants about the incident at _____________ Navotas Plant all reasonably
prove the fact that the grinder machine parts were stolen and the same was linked to their
malicious acts of complainants on that fateful morning of 19 August 2007, which were
witnessed by Villanueva and Bosico.
“An employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the
employment of an individual who admittedly was guilty of misfeasance or
malfeasance towards his employer, and who continuance in the service of
the latter is patently inimical to his interests. The right of the company to
dismiss its employees is a measure of self-protection against acts inimical to
its interests. (Philippine Air Lines, Inc. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 82471, 18
February 1991)

This crime, which burdened the company with P78,000.00 and posed a big risks to the
employment of the hundreds of _____________ employees at the _____________ Plant, is
completely inimical to the interests of respondents and thus validly justifies the dismissal of
complainants.
More importantly, it bears stressing that the nominal amount of the machine grinder
parts (the P78,000.00) is a small loss to bear upon respondents. The bigger loss is the trust of
respondents with complainants, being employees handling sensitive positions at
_____________ Navotas Plant, and the fracture of the _____________‘s management
confidence with _____________ BUSINESS and the accompanied opportunity loss of both
companies and their end-customers.

II. RESPONDENTS HAVE VALIDLY OBSERVED THE

DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE LABOR CODE IN
TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF COMPLAINANTS.

On the same tract, respondents have terminated the services of complainants by

affording them sufficient opportunity to explain their side in an impartial investigation
process which they participated in. Thus, for all intents and purposes, complainants were
terminated not only with valid cause, but also with valid manner and due process.
It bears stressing that respondents complied with the twin notice requirement in
effecting the dismissal of complainants.
First, respondents issued a memo dated 21 August 2007 to all three complainants
requiring them to explain what transpired at the time of the incident and show cause why
they should not be subject of disciplinary actions by management. They were placed under
preventive suspension as their presence at the plant may hamper the impartial investigation
by the Investigation Committee.
The preventive suspension, for a period not exceeding thirty (30)
days, of the department manager and assistant manager pending
investigation into the alleged alterations they made in the entries of the
company’s port operations logbook, has been held to be proper.” (Pacific
Cement Company, Inc. vs. NLRC et al, G.R. Nos. 78871-72, 5 May 1989)

The records of this case would show that the investigation process lasted for a
considerable length of time, from 21 August to 15 September 2007. And complainants were
given sufficient opportunity to explain their side and defend themselves against the charges
lodged upon them.
Unfortunately, despite given such opportunity, the explanation of complainants did
not convince the Investigation Committee as their explanation per se left much to be desired.
Worse, _____________ even absented himself from the hearing scheduled by the Investigation
Committee
“Due process has been held to have been satisfied in a case where
the employer scheduled an investigation twice but the employee, despite
due notice, chose to boycott the same.” (GT Printers vs. NLRC, et al., G.R.
No. 100749, 24 April 1992)

Second, as a result of the investigation process, respondents found substantial

evidence linking the three complainants to the crime involving the loss of the grinder machine
parts at the _____________ Plant, thus respondents terminated them. Complainants were
duly notified of the decision of the Investigation Committee and their consequent termination
from the service effective ___ September 2007.
“Corollariy, the ground for the dismissal of an employee does not
require proof beyond reasonable doubt; the quantum of proof required is
merely substantial evidence.” (Vergara vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 117196, 5
December 2007)

All told, it is respectfully submitted that respondents have all the right to dismiss
complainants for being erring employees who committed a crime against the interests of
respondents and its client. Such dismissal was effected in strict observance of the
requirement of law, equity and due process. After all, it is the best interests of complainants
and respondents and its client, nay including the rest of the respondents’ employees working
at _____________ Navotas Plant, that complainants be terminated as a public example that
crime deserves punishment and justice is applied fairly and squarely at the shop floor.
“Social justice cannot be permitted to be the refuge of scoundrels
any more than equity be an impediment to the punishment of the guilty.
xxx This great policy of our Constitution is not meant for the protection of
those who have proved they are not worthy of it, like the workers who have
tainted the cause of labor with the blemishes of their own character.”
(Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. NLRC et al, G.R. No. 80609, 23
 August 1988; Telefunken Semi-conductors Employees Union-FFW vs. Court of
Appeals, G. R. Nos. 143013-14, 18 Dec 2000)

III. RESPONDENT ROMEO _____________

CAN NEVER BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE
TERMINATION OF HEREIN COMPLAINANTS
EVEN IF AN ILLEGALITY OF TERMINATION
HAS IN FACT BEEN COMMITTED

It is well-settled in law and equity that as a legal entity, a corporation has a

personality distinct and separate from its individual stockholders or members and from that
of its officers who manage and run its affairs. 1 The legal fiction by which the legal
personality of a corporation is created is a practical reality and necessity. Without it, no
corporate entities may exist and no corporate business may be transacted.2

In labor cases, the Supreme Court in the case of Malayang Samahan ng mga
Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield v. Ramos3, ratiocinated that:

“The Court has held corporate directors and officers solidarily liable with
the corporation for the termination of employment of corporate employees
done with malice or in bad faith.” (Underscoring and stress supplied)

Taking it from there, an officer of the corporation can be held liable for the
termination of service of an employee if the same was effected with malice or in bad faith.
Respondent Romeo _____________ cannot be held personally liable in the instant complaint.
In the first place, no illegality of termination had ever been made in the foregoing case. As
previously stated, complainants were never illegaly dismissed from their employment.
Lastly, and the most important of all, no amount of malice or bad faith can ever be imputed
to respondent _____________ by just being an officer of the respondent company. Absence
of termination dispute and malice or bad faith, respondent _____________ can never be held
personally liable.
As such, the complaint against respondent Robrigado does not have any leg to stand
on its own.

IV. RESPONDENTS, BY WAY OF COUNTER-CLAIM, SHOULD

BE AWARDED WITH DAMAGES TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE
UNFOUNDED CLAIMS OF COMPLAINANTS WHICH CAUSED
DAMAGE TO HEREIN RESPONDENTS NOT TO MENTION
EXTREME PREJUDICE AND INJURY TO ITS NAME AND
BUSINESS OPERATION

In Chapter 2, Article 19 of the Civil Code governing Human Relations, it is expressly

provided that:
“Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due,
and observe honesty and good faith.”

It is basic as a hornbook principle in the field of human relations that a person should
be protected only when he acts with prudence and in good faith, but not when he acts with
negligence or abuse.
Evidently, the sole purpose of complainant in instituting this baseless complaint is
mainly to prejudice and injure respondents. Indeed, complainant cannot outragely cry that
respondents committed illegal dismissal considering that, in the first place, no illegality in
the dismissal of herein complainants was ever committed by herein respondents as their

1
Boyer-Roxas v. C.A., 211 SCRA 470.
2
Vasquez v. de Borja, 74 Phil. 560.
3
357 SCRA 77.
dismissal has been sufficiently attended with just cause and with due process.
But despite of this fact, complainant even had the temerity to file this frivolous
complaint against respondents alleging illegal dismissal as his cause of action knowing fully
well that the same never exists.
We should be mindful that every person is bound to exercise his rights according to
the principles of good faith. For indeed, the law does not protect the manifest abuse of a
right. In the erudite expatiations of the late Senator Arturo Tolentino, he asseverates:

“There is undoubtedly an abuse of right when it is exercised for the only

purpose of prejudicing or injuring another. When the objective of the actor is
illegitimate, the illicit act cannot be concealed under the guise of exercising a
right. The principle does not permit acts which, without utility or legitimate
purpose, cause damage to another, because they violate the concept of social
solidarity which considers law as rational and just. Hence, every abnormal
exercise of a right, contrary to its socio-economic purpose, is an abuse that
will give rise to liability. The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the
purpose for which it was established, and must not be excessive or unduly harsh;
there must be no intention to injure another.” (Civil Code of the Philippines,
Vol. 1, pp. 61-62, Arturo M. Tolentino, 2002 reprinted edition) (Underscoring and
stress supplied)

For this reason, complainant should be held liable for moral and exemplary damages
to respondents in the amount of ONE MILLION PESOS (Php1,000,000.00). And, since
respondents were constrained to hire the services of counsel, to protect their interests
against this frivolous suit, attorney’s fees should likewise be awarded in the amount of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00).

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the instant

complaint be dismissed for lack of merit.
Other relief and remedies, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed
for.
San Juan City for Quezon City.

12 November 2007.

LAW & ASSOCIATES

Counsel for Petitioner