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
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.

2|Page
 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 13 th 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:

“(A) An employee may terminate without just cause the employee-

employer relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at
3|Page
 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,
ATTORNEY'S FEES, LITIGATION AND THE
LIKE EXPENSES AND COST OF THE SUIT.
4|Page
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.

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.

5|Page
 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:

"In employment termination cases attorney's fees are not recoverable

where there is no sufficient showing of bad faith on the part or private

6|Page
 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