Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. III
City of San Fernando, Pampanga
***
MR. E

Complainant,

- versus- NLRC CASE NO. RAB-lll-12-34567-89

ABC CORPORATION, MR. A-

President, and MR. C-HR Head

Respondents.

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

RESPONDENT’S POSITION PAPER

RESPONDENT, by counsel, to this Honorable Office, most respectfully

submits this Position Paper as follows:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

In protecting the rights of the workers, the law, however, does not authorize the
oppression or self-destruction of the employer. The constitutional commitment to the
policy of social justice cannot be understood to mean that every labor dispute shall
automatically be decided in favor of labor. The constitutional and legal protection
equally recognize the employer’s right and prerogative to manage its operation
according to reasonable standards and norms of fair play. (Imasen Philippine
Manufacturing Corporation vs. Alcon and Papa, G.R. No. 194884, October 22,
2014)

1|Page
 THE CASE

1. This is a case for Illegal Dismissal (Constructive), Non-payment of 13th

Month Pay, Non-payment of Separation Pay and Moral and Exemplary
Damages; and Attorney’s Fee; Non-payment of Holiday and Rest
Day,Full Back Wages and Money claims.

2. As will be shown hereunder, the aforesaid claims are baseless and

unfounded. Hence, the instant complaint must be dismissed for Utter lack
of merit.

THE PARTIES

3. Complainant MR. E, is of legal age, Filipino, with residential address at

123 Road, Magnolia Street, Malolos, Bulacan, and a shop man at
respondent ABC Corporation and may be served with summonses and
other legal processes of this Honorable Office at said address or through
the undersigned counsel or law firm at the address herein below indicated.

4. Respondent ABC Corporation (ABC for brevity), with office address in

Malolos City, Bulacan, Philippines, where it may be served with
summonses and other legal processes of this Honorable Office, on the
other hand, is a corporation or business entity (engaged in retreading or
recapping of tire services) existing and operating under and by virtue of
Philippine laws while individual respondent Mr. A is its President, and
Mr. C is its HR Head and the person primarily responsible for the illegal
dismissal of herein complainant, among other illegal and illicit acts
subject of this case. All may be served with summonses and other legal
processes of this Honorable Office at said address ( Malolos City,
Bulacan, Philippines).

FACTS OF THE CASE

5. Herein complainant was employed as a shop man at ABC Corporation on

March 1, 2003, with a monthly salary of 14,046.00, a fact contrary to the
duly accomplished Complaint Form of this case which states that the

2|Page
 complainant started his work on April 15, 2000, then as shop man at the
time of filing of complaint with a monthly salary of P10,000.00.

6. Contrary also to the allegations of herein complainant, he was not

dismissed by ABC Corporation. Instead, he voluntarily resigned from his
work. In fact, the company has the handwritten resignation letter of
complainant dated June 11, 2020 in Tagalog dialect which states that his
resignation was prompted by his desire to return to the province with his
family upon request by his sick mother, apart from the need to attend to
their farm and his intention to take a much needed rest. Since the
submission of his resignation letter, complainant never reported for work
and could no longer be located.

7. Respondents learned that complainant resigned from work because he

wants to receive a separation pay which he can use in settling and paying
his numerous obligations. Further, Complainant received his 13th month
pay from respondents.

ISSUES

I.

WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED

II.

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS WERE, JOINTLY

AND SOLIDARILY, LIABLE FOR ALL THE MONEY CLAIMS HEREIN
CLAIMED INCLUDING MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES,
ATTORNEY'S FEES, LITIGATION AND THE LIKE EXPENSES AND COST OF
THE SUIT.

DISCUSSION/ARGUMENTS

COMPLAINANT WAS NOT ILLEGALLY DISMISSED

An employee resigning from work is governed by Article 300 of Presidential

Decree 442 or the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended and renumbered:

3|Page
 “(A) An employee may terminate without just cause the employee-
employer relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at
least one (1) month in advance. The employer upon whom no such
notice was served may hold the employee liable for damages.

In line with this, we worthy of credence is the difference between resignation

and constructive dismissal. Thus, being guided by the decision of the court in the
case of Central Azucarera de Bais Inc. vs Siason (Gr 215555, July 29, 2015), the
Supreme Court through Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe stated.

“Resignation is the formal pronouncement or relinquishment of a position or

office. It is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation where he believes
that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, and
he has then no other choice but to disassociate himself from employment. The intent
to relinquish must concur with the overt act of relinquishment; hence, the acts of the
employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered in determining
whether he in fact intended to terminate his employment. In illegal dismissal cases, it
is a fundamental rule that when an employer interposes the defense of resignation, on
him necessarily rests the burden to prove that the employee indeed voluntarily
resigned.

“In contrast, constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work

because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as
an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay and other benefits.
Aptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to
appear as if it were not, constructive dismissal may, likewise, exist if an act of clear
discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the
part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his
continued employment. It must be noted, however, that bare allegations of
constructive dismissal, when uncorroborated by the evidence on record, cannot be
given credence.”

Thus, applied in the present case, herein complainant voluntarily resigned

from his work, negating the claim of an illegal nor constructive dismissal.

RESPONDENTS ARE NOT JOINTLY AND

SOLIDARILY, LIABLE FOR ALL THE MONEY
CLAIMS HEREIN CLAIMED INCLUDING
MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES,
4|Page
ATTORNEY'S FEES, LITIGATION AND THE
LIKE EXPENSES AND COST OF THE SUIT.

SEPARATION PAY

It should be noted that employees who voluntarily resign from work are not
entitled to separation pay. Philippine laws only grant separation pay to those who were
dismissed from service not due to their own fault or negligence but for reasons that are
beyond their control, i.e. business closure, cessation of operation, retrenchment
(reduction of costs) to prevent losses, etc. Thus, as stated in the case ofHanford
Philippines, Incorporated And Victor Te, vs. Shirley Joseph,G.R. No. 158251 March
31, 2005)

“It is well to note that there is no provision in the Labor Code which grants
separation pay to employees who voluntarily resign. Under the Code, separation pay
may be awarded only in cases when the termination of employment is due to: (a)
installation of labor saving devices, (b) redundancy, (c) retrenchment, (d) closing or
cessation of business operations, (e) disease of an employee and his continued
employment is prejudicial to himself or his co-employees, or (f) when an employee is
illegally dismissed but
reinstatement is no longer feasible.”

Again, as herein complainant voluntarily resigned from his work, the award of
separation pay cannot be justified.

MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

Moral damages are only recoverable when the dismissal of an employee is

attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or is done in a
manner contrary to good morals, good customs or public policy. Exemplary damages,
on the other hand, are recoverable when the dismissal was done in a wanton,
oppressive, or malevolent manner. (Jonald O. Torreda vs. Investment and Capital
Corporation Of The Philippines,G.R. No. 229881, September 05, 2018)

Further, as held also in the case of Globe Telecom, Inc. vs. Florendo-Flores,
390 SCRA 201, an award of moral damages is not proper where the dismissal is not
shown to be attended by bad faith, or oppressive to labor, or done in a manner
contrary to morals, good custom or public policy.

5|Page
 Latly, Article 2229 of the Civil Code states that "exemplary or corrective
damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good It thus
presupposes that an act violative of the law has been committed.

In the present case, there is no showing that respondents acted with bad faith or
in violation of the law. There is neither a violation of complainants' rights that need to
be vindicated. There is therefore no basis for an award of moral or exemplary
damages. Respondents humbly submit that there is no cause for complainant to be
entitled to any form of damages as the former clearly proved that they never
committed act/s violative of the law.

REST DAY PAY PAY, HOLIDAY PAYAND 13TH MONTH PAY

Let it be on record that the respondents are able and willing to pay complainant
whatever standing obligations that may be due to him, however, although it is indeed
that the burden of proving payment as regards an employee's money claims is with the
employer, the complainant must first specify and present his basis for entitlement to
these claims. For instance, what period did he not receive his overtime pay and
holiday pay? When was he not paid his 1 3th month pay?

As held in the case of Lagatic vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 721004, January 28,
7998:

"Petitioner failed to show his entitlement to overtime and rest day pay
due to the lack of sufficient evidence as to the number of days and hours
when he rendered overtime and rest day work. Entitlement to overtime
pay must first be established by proof that said overtime work was
actually performed, before an employee may avail of said benefit. To
support his allegations, petitioner submitted in evidence minutes of
meetings wherein he was assigned to work on weekend and holidays at
Cityland's housing projects. Suffice it to say that said minutes do not
prove that petitioner actually worked on said dates. It is a basic rule in
evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegations. This
petitioner failed to do so."

ATTORNEY’S FEES

The prayer for attorney's fees must also fail. As held in the case of Lopez vs. NLRC,
et al., G.R. No. 124548, October 8, 7998, the Supreme Court held that:

6|Page
 "In employment termination cases attorney's fees are not recoverable
where there is no sufficient showing of bad faith on the part or private
respondent [employer]. Under Art. 2208 (2) of the New Civil Code, the
award thereof is justified if the claimant is compelled to litigate with
third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an
unjustified act of the party against whom it is sought." (Emphasis ours)

In the case at bar, the unjustified act is clearly wanting since there is clearly no illegal
dismissal.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto this

Honorable Office that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

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

Quezon City for the City of San Fernando, Pampanga, 3rd September 2020.

Atty. Ernesto Adriano III

Atty. Chloe Anne Sy Galita
Counsels for the Respondent
Bulacan State University
City of Malolos, Bulacan

7|Page
 Republic of the Philippines
Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. III
City of San Fernando, Pampanga
***

MR. E
Complainant,

- versus- NLRC CASE NO.

RAB-lll-12-34567-89

ABC
CORPORATION,
MR. A-President,
and MR. C- HR
Head
Respondents.

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

RESPONDENT’S REJOINDER
Respondents, through the undersigned counsel, unto the Honorable Office,
respectfully submit the following comments by way of Rejoinder to the
Complainant’s Reply, as follows:

Contrary to the complainant’s contention, he,

in truth and in fact, started his work at ABC
Corporation on March 1, 2003, with a monthly
salary of 14,046.00.

1. In his reply, particularly in paragraph 1, the complainant stated

that he started his work at ABC Corporation as helper in April 15, 2000,
8|Page
 then as shop man at the time of filing of complaint with a monthly salary
of P10,000.00.

However, the complainant actually started his work at ABC

Corporation on March 1, 2003, with a monthly salary of 14,046.00. As
the complainant has requested in his position paper, attached herewith are
the pertinent personnel files such as his payrolls from the year 2000 at the
time of the filing of the complaint, and is marked as “EXHIBIT A”.

Contrary to the complainant’s contention,

he was never constructively dismissed because
he voluntarily resigned from his work.

2.It is worth noting that the respondents also deny the allegation
contained in paragraphs 15 and16 that state that he was not allowed to
return and report for work and that he did not resign but was instead
constructively dismissed.

Leadingus to the main issue of whether or not there was

constructive dismissal, respondents respectfully maintain that there was
none, because the complainant voluntarily resigned from his work.

It is well settled that bare allegations of constructive dismissal,

when uncorroborated by the evidence on record, cannot be given
credence Neither can it be held that Doble was constructively dismissed
because there is no evidence on record of any act of clear discrimination,
insensibility, or disdain towards him which rendered his continued
employment unbearable or forced him to terminate his employment from
ABB, Inc., much less a claim of demotion in rank or a diminution of pay
and other benefits. (Luis S. Doble, Jr., Petitioner Vs. Abb, Inc./Nitin
Desai, G.R. No. 215627)

The company would like to reiterate that it has the handwritten

resignation letter of complainant dated June 11, 2020 in Tagalog dialect.
Said handwritten resignation letter is likewise herein attached and marked
as “EXHIBIT B.”

As held also in the same case of Luis S. Doble, Jr. Vs. Abb,
Inc./Nitin Desai, what is important for resignation to be deemed
voluntary is that the employee's intent to relinquish must concur with the
overt act of relinquishment.

9|Page
 Thus, since from the time of the submission of his resignation
letter, complainant never reported for work and could no longer be
located, the same should be considered as his voluntary act. Thus,
respondents respectfully move for the outright dismissal of complainant's
claim of any constructive dismissal.

Contrary to the complainant’s contention,

he is not entitled to 13th month pay, holiday
and rest day pay as these claims were never
included in his position paper.

3. At the outset, respondents would like to point out that a simple perusal of
herein complainant’s pro-forma complaint shows that his causes of action are: Illegal
Dismissal (Constructive), Non-payment of 13th Month Pay, Non-payment of
Separation Pay and Moral and Exemplary Damages; and Attorney’s Fee; Non-
payment of Holiday and Rest Day,Full Back Wages and Money claims.

However, in his position paper, the claims raised are only limited to an
allegation of a constructive dismissal, and money claims of moral and exemplary
damages and attorney’s fees.

As provided in the case of Dee Jay's Inn and Cafe And/Or Melinda
FerrarisV. Ma. LorinaRañeses, G.R. No. 191825, October 05, 2016,

These verified position papers to be submitted shall cover only

those claims and causes of action raised in the complaint excluding
those that may have been amicably settled, and shall be accompanied by
all supporting documents including the affidavits of their respective
witnesses which shall take the place of the latter's direct testimony. The
parties shall thereafter not be allowed to allege facts, or present
evidence to prove facts, not referred to and any cause or causes of
action not included in the complaint or position papers, affidavits
and other documents. (Emphases supplied.)

Stated differently, the parties could allege and present evidence to

prove any cause or causes of action included, not only in the complaint,
but in the position papers as well.

And as the Court further explained in Tegimenta Chemical Phils.

v. Buensalida:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

10 | P a g e
 [T]he complaint is not the only document from which the
complainant's cause of action is determined in a labor case. Any cause
of action that may not have been included in the complaint or position
paper, can no longer be alleged after the position paper is submitted by
the parties. In other words, the filing of the position paper is the
operative act which forecloses the raising of other matters
constitutive of the cause of action. This necessarily implies that the
cause of action is finally ascertained only after both the complaint
and position paper are properly evaluated.

Lastly, as held in the case of Samar-Med Distribution v.

National Labor Relations Commission, the Court held:

The rules of the NLRC require the submission of verified

position papers by the parties should they fail to agree upon an amicable
settlement, and bar the inclusion of any cause of action not mentioned in
the complaint or position paper from the time of their submission by the
parties. In view of this, Gutang's cause of action should be
ascertained not from a reading of his complaint alone but also from
a consideration and evaluation of both his complaint and position
paper.

Thus, respondents respectfully move for the outright dismissal of complainant's

claim for 13th month pay, rest day and holiday pay, and separation pay due to its non-
inclusion in the position paper and as such, deemed waived.

Contrary to the complainant’s contention,

he is not entitled to separation pay.

4. It should be noted that employees who voluntarily resign from

work are not entitled to separation pay. Philippine laws only grant
separation pay to those who were dismissed from service not due to their
own fault or negligence but for reasons that are beyond their control, i.e.
business closure, cessation of operation, retrenchment (reduction of costs)
to prevent losses, etc. Thus, as stated in the case of Hanford Philippines,
Incorporated And Victor Te, vs. Shirley Joseph, G.R. No. 158251 March
31, 2005)

“It is well to note that there is no provision in the Labor Code

which grants separation pay to employees who voluntarily resign. Under

11 | P a g e
 the Code, separation pay may be awarded only in cases when the
termination of employment is due to: (a) installation of labor saving
devices, (b) redundancy, (c) retrenchment, (d) closing or cessation of
business operations, (e) disease of an employee and his continued
employment is prejudicial to himself or his co-employees, or (f) when an
employee is illegally dismissed but
reinstatement is no longer feasible.”

Again, as herein complainant voluntarily resigned from his work,

the award of separation pay cannot be justified.

Contrary to the complainant’s contention,

he is not entitled to moral and exemplary damages.

5.As for his money claims pertaining to moral and exemplary damages, the
respondents maintain its position that moral damages are only recoverable when the
dismissal of an employee is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act
oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs or
public policy. Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are recoverable when the
dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner. (Jonald O.
Torreda vs. Investment and Capital Corporation Of The Philippines,G.R. No.
229881, September 05, 2018)

That, as also held in the case of Globe Telecom, Inc. vs. Florendo-Flores, 390
SCRA 201, an award of moral damages is not proper where the dismissal is not shown
to be attended by bad faith, or oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to
morals, good custom or public policy.

It should be remembered that in cases before administrative and quasi-judicial

agencies like the NLRC, the degree of evidence required to be met is substantial
evidence, or such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to justify a conclusion. In a situation where the word of another party is
taken against the other, as in this case, we must rely on substantial evidence because
a party alleging a critical fact must duly substantiate and support its allegation. (Dee
Jay's Inn and Cafe And/Or Melinda FerrarisV. Ma. LorinaRañeses, G.R. No.
191825, October 05, 2016)

Thus, for failure to prove with substantial evidence that his alleged constructive
dismissal was attended with bad faith, or oppression to labor, or was done in any
manner contrary to morals, good custom or public policy, respondents respectfully
move for the outright dismissal of complainant's claim not only of moral but also of
exemplary damages.
12 | P a g e
Lastly, contrary to the complainant’s contention,
he is not entitled to attorney’s fees.

5.Because of the absence of a constructive dismissal, respondents

shouldalso not be made to pay attorney's fees since there is no sufficient
showing of bad faith on their part.

"It is a well-settled principle that even if a claimant is compelled to

litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect the claimant's
rights, attorney's fees may still not be awarded where no sufficient
showing of bad faith could be reflected in a party's persistence in a case
other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause."
(Moreno vs. San Sebastian College-Recoletos Manila, G.R. No. 175283,
March 28, 2008).

6. Finally, as the Honorable Supreme Court stated in Bagongahasa

vs. Romualdez, G.R. No. 779844, March 23, 2011:

"It may not be amiss to stress that laws which have for their object the
preservation and maintenance of social justice are not only meant to
favor the poor and underprivileged. They apply with equal force to those
who, notwithstanding their more comfortable position in life, are
equally deserving of protection from the courts. Social justice is not a
license to trample on the rights of the rich in the guise of defending the
poor, where no act of injustice or abuse is being committed against
them."

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto this

Honorable Office that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

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

Done this 6th day of September 2020, City of Malolos, Bulacan.

ATTY. ERNESTO ADRIANO III

ATTY. CHLOE ANNE S. GALITA
13 | P a g e
 Counsels for the Respondents
Bulacan State University
City of Malolos, Bulacan
EXHIBIT A

PAYROLL

12345
6
NAME : Mr. E PA
YROLL #:

ABC Corporation

M Malolos, Bulacan Total Annual

R. E Payment Received

J S Pa
OB hopman y:

P
14,046.00

March 1, 2003 – March 1,

2004 P168,552

March 1, 2004 – March 1,

2005 P168,552

14 | P a g e
 March 1, 2005 – March 1,
2006 P168,552

March 1, 2006 – March 1, P168,5

2007 52

March 1, 2007 – March 1, P168,5

2008 52

March 1, 2008 – March 1, P168,5

2009 52

March 1, 2009 – March 1, P168,5

2010 52

March 1, 2010 – March 1, P168,5

2011 52

March 1, 2011 – March 1, P168,5

2012 52

March 1, 2013 – March 1, P168,5

2014 52

March 1, 2014 – March 1, P168,5

2015 52

March 1, 2015 – March 1, P168,5

2016 52

March 1, 2016 – March 1, P168,5

2017 52

March 1, 2017 – March 1, P168,5

2018 52

15 | P a g e
 March 1, 2018 – March 1, P168,5
2019 52

March 1, 2019 – March 1, P168,5

2020 52

March 1, 2020 – June 11, P42,13

2020 8

EXHIBIT B

16 | P a g e
 June 11, 2020

To: MR. A-President

ABC CORPORATION,

Dear Sir/Madam,

Angsulatponaito ay para ipabatidsainyonaakopo ay

bibitiwnasaakingtrabaho. Ito po ay dahilsaakingkagustuhannamakauwi
ng probinsyakasamaangakingpamilya, sapagkatitoanghiling ng
akinginana may sakit. Bukod pa rito, kinakailanganko ring asikasuhin an
gaming bukirin at gayundin, ninanaiskorinpomakapagpahinga.

Sumasainyo,

Mr. E.

17 | P a g e