Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

MARIA MAKILING,
Complainant,

-versus- NLRC- NCR-Case No. 0986-27

JUAN TAMAD COMPANY

and JUAN TAMAD,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER

Respondents JUAN TAMAD COMPANY and JUAN TAMAD, by counsel,

respectfully submit their Position Paper for the consideration of the Honorable Labor
Arbiter.

PARTIES

xxx xxx xxx

STATEMENT OF FACTS

4. On 01 September 2011, complainant was employed by respondents as a

Cashier, for their Branch in Quezon City, on contractual basis for a period of five (5)
months or until 01 February 2012.

7. Among the more important duties of complainant as a Cashier was to

deposit and safekeep the daily cash collections of respondent Company. In carrying
out this particular duty, complainant was obliged to deposit, by dropping into the
vault (with a small opening on top of it), the envelope containing the daily cash
collections of respondent Company. The Cashier would then fill up a Drop Form
which indicates the cash collections on a particular date, counter-signed by the a co-
employee who was on duty.

8. On 01 March 2012, respondent Juan Tamad, during his routine

inspection and collection, dropped by respondent Company’s branch at Quezon City
to collect the cash sales for the month of February. When he opened the vault to
retrieve the cash sales envelopes, he discovered that based on the entries in the Drop
Form, four (4) cash sales envelopes amounting to a total of Eighty Two Thousand
Seven Hundred Ninety Pesos (P82,790.00) were missing corresponding to the
following dates, to wit:

Date Amount of Sales

24 February 2012 P12,380.00

25 February 2012 P36,160.00

25 February 2012 P30,000.00

27 February 2012 P4,250.00

TOTAL AMOUNT P82,790.00

9. In an immediate effort to get an explanation as to the foregoing missing

cash envelopes, respondent Juan Tamad again checked the Drop Forms to determine
the employees on duty during the foregoing dates corresponding to the missing cash
sales envelopes. Based on the Drop Forms, it was complainant who was the Cashier-
In-Charge on 24 February, 25 February and 27 February 2012 while the other
employee whose signature appears as counter-checker was Jose Malakas.

10. Feeling betrayed, respondent Juan Tamad immediately ordered

complainant to leave the premises and to no longer return to the Branch.

11. Thereafter, complainant filed the instant illegal dismissal complaint.

 ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT HAD VALIDLY DISMISS

THE COMPLAINAT DUE TO EXPIRATION OF THE CONTRACT OF
EMPLOYMENT

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT HAS A VALID GROUND TO

DISMISS THE COMPLAINANT UNDER ART. 281 OF THE LABOR
CODE

ARGUMENTS FOR THE RESPONDENT

THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT

HAS ALREADY LAPSED

The contract between the Respondent and Complainant regarding the term or period of employment
shall be only 5 (five) months, from 01 September 2011 to 01 March 2011. Complainant had already served
the Respondent period of 5 (five) months. Furthermore, the Respondent had given the Complainant an
extension of one month from the time the agreed term or period of employment when the Respondent
dismissed the Complainant on 01 March, 2012.

Art. 280 of the Labor Code shall govern the parties in this case. It provides that:

“The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the
oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged
to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except
where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or
termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or
where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for
the duration of the season.

An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph:

Provided, That any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken,
shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall
continue while such activity exists.”

In this case, term or period of engagement agreed by the parties has already lapsed. The Respondent
has a right to dismiss the employee based on the term or period of agreement which expired on 01 March,
2011.

RESPONDENT HAS A VALID GROUND

TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINANT
UNDER ART. 282 (1) OF THE LABOR
CODE

Arguendo that there is an employer-employee relationship between the Respondent and Complainant, the
Respondent has a valid ground to dismiss the Complainant because of his failure to account the missing
4(four) cash sales envelopes amounting to amounting to a total of Eighty Two Thousand Seven Hundred
Ninety Pesos (P82,790.00). This act of the Complainant is a fraud or willful breach of the trust reposed in
him by the employer under Art. 282 of the Labor Code. The Complainant has duty of safekeeping the cash
sales in the vault.

Art. 282 of the Labor provides the valid grounds or causes to terminate the employment by the employer:

“Art. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
a. Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in
connection with his work;

b. Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

c. Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or
duly authorized representative;

d. Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his
family or his duly authorized representatives; and

e. Other causes analogous to the foregoing.”

In this case, the Respondent found out that the vault has missing cash sales vault. Upon verification
by the Respondent, he found out that the complainant is the on-duty officer of the vault at the time when the
cash sales were missing. The Complainant defrauded and betrayed the trust repose in him by the Respondent
when he failed to account the missing cash sales. Thus, the Respondent has a valid cause to dismiss the
Complainant under Art. 280 C. of the Labor Code.