REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

REGIONAL ARBITRATION BRANCH IV
CALAMBA CITY, LAGUNA

ARNEL L. WASLO, RICKY

VILLARAMA, JOVIT C.
PENAFLOR, ABRAHAM
ALCONES, JON-JON A.
VALDERAMA, JR.,
Complainants,
NLRC CASE NO.RAB-IV-01-00134-20-L

-versus-
LOGICORE INCORPORATED,
DANNY B. MENDOZA, PRINCESS
CAPUA, MARK SANTILLAN,
WATSON’S DISTRIBUTION
CENTER/GENERAL MANAGER
Respondents.
X---------------------------------------X

OPPOSITION
(TO RESPONDENT WATSONS COMMENT)

Complainants through the undersigned counsel, respectfully

submit this Opposition to respondent Watsons “Comment (re:
Complainant’s Reply) dated May 12, 2021, and in support thereof
avers THAT:

1. In sum, respondent Watsons’ counsel attacks cries both

procedural lapses and substantive defects both in the submission
of complainants the Position Paper and Reply. These contentions
must frowned upon, and not be given any consideration for being
bereft of merit for the following reasons.

2. First, respondents were duly furnished a copy of

complainant’s Motion to Revive/Re-open with Motion to Admit
Position Paper. During this time, the main office and/or the
opposing counsel’s office were still unknown to complainants.
Hence, the said motion and attached position paper was sent to
and/or addressed to the President/Owner/Manager of Watson
Distribution Center LII Mamplasan Binan City, Laguna 4024,
under Registry Receipt No. _______________________, posted at
_______________________ last ____________________, the original copy
of the registry receipt was submitted to the Office of the Honorable
Executive Labor Arbiter as proof of service.
 4. With regards to complainants’ “Reply”, since herein counsel
received a copy of respondent WATSONS position paper,
complainants’ reply was duly filed. Respondent WATSONS was duly
furnished a copy thereof via registered mail under Registry Receipt
No.RE 471 540 225 ZZ, posted at the Starmall Alabang Philpost
last April 27, 2021.

5. This mode of service was provided or under Section 7 1 Rule

II of the 2005 NLRC Rule of Procedure as amended. Recently this
was reinforced by the “Interim amendments to the 2011 NLRC
Rules of Procedure-En banc Resolution No. 03-20, Series of 2020 2.

6. Moreover, respondent WATSONS had file their Opposition

to the complainants reply, hence, they cannot feign non receipt of
complainants’ position paper and reply.

7. On this note, upon knowledge of the complainant, the

opposing counsel should have coordinated with their client and
sought for the copy of said motion and position paper. Better, they
could have directly sent their representative to the NLRC RAB IV to
procure copies of the said position paper and reply in defense of
their client, instead of feigning non-receipt of the respective
pleadings by complainant. HENCE, complainants’ Position Paper
and Reply and all allegations and attachments therein be admitted
accordingly as part and parcel of the records of this case.

8. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 9 to 14 should be

taken little or NO CONSIDERATION at all. The Organizational
Chart as presented in paragraph 9 (as part of the paragraph) is
merely a self-serving illustration by respondents with no proof of
authenticity.

9. Furthermore, Annex “1” and “2” of the Comment should be

disregarded, again for being self-serving and wanting of
authenticity. These documents although electronically generated
are all man-made and subject to errors and that the information
and/or data being inputed and reflected therein can be
manipulated by any authorized personnel of both LOGICORE
and/or WATSONS.
1
Section 7. Proof and Completeness of Service. - The return is prima facie proof
of the facts indicated therein. Service by registered mail is complete upon
receipt by the addressee or his agent; but if the addressee fails to claim his mail
from the post office within five (5) days from the date of first notice of the
postmaster, service shall take effect after such time.

2
The simultaneous filing of position paper under section 12, par (a) of Rule V of
the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedures, as amended, is likewise suspended.

Within two (2) days from the receipt of the complaint or amended complaint ,
the Labor Arbiter shall issue the Summons upon respondent. Within five (5)
from receipt thereof, through registered mail or authorized private courier.
 10. Self-serving evidence,’ perhaps owing to its descriptive
formulation, is a concept much misunderstood. Not infrequently,
the term is employed as a weapon to devalue and discredit a party's
testimony favorable to his cause. That, it seems, is the sense in
which petitioners are using it now. This is a grave error. "Self-
serving evidence" is not to be taken literally to mean any evidence
that serves its proponent's interest. The term, if used with any
legal sense, refers only to acts or declarations made by a party
in his own interest at some place and time out of court x x x.
(Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)3

11. Assailed Annexes are bereft of merit for not complying

“The Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)”,
specifically, Sections 1 and 2 (a) and (b) of Rule 5 , to wit:

“ Rule 5AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC

DOCUMENTS
Section 1. Burden of proving authenticity. – The person
seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal
proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in
the manner provided in this Rule.
Section 2. Manner of authentication. – Before any
private electronic document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by
any of the following means:
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the
person purported to have signed the same;
(b) by evidence that other appropriate security
procedures or devices as may be authorized by the
Supreme Court or by law for authentication of
electronic documents were applied to the document;
or
(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability
to the satisfaction of the judge.” (Emphasis and
underscoring ours)

12. Such computer-generated document can easily be

concocted to serve the purpose of respondents’ fallacy. In this case
respondents merely filed an unverified and unfaithful reproduction
of the alleged annexes. Hence, incompetent evidence.

13. Even assuming that Mr. Renato Malocon is an employee

of LOGICORE does not negate the fact that LOGICORE is a labor
only contractor.

14. Humor besets respondent’s allegations in their comment,

by attacking and refuting points in the complainant’s statements

3
Heirs of Pedro Clemeña y Zurbano v. Heirs of Irene B. Bien, G.R. No. 155508,
September 11, 2006, 501 SCRA 405, 416.
and claiming non-receipt of the complainants’ position paper and
reply, which was most unlikely.

15. Moreover, respondent proffers Exhibit A of the Third-Party

Logistics Agreement which is off no moment but merely a “list
and/or inventory” of equipment/machineries which does not
accord ownership of said machineries to respondent LOGICORE.
Hence, liberality should be shifted in favor of the complainants.

16. Lastly, respondent WATSONS assails the jurisprudence

laid down by complainants claiming its inapplicability just because
the industry concerned is different with the instance case. This
contention fails to convince.

17. If logistics should be taken in consideration, the Service

Agreement did not mention trucking or hauling services for the
transfer of goods to specific areas.

18. Respondent LOGICORE is a Labor Only Contractor. There

is “labor only” contracting where the person supplying workers to
an employer does not have substantial capital or investment in the
form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among
others, and the workers recruited and placed by such persons are
performing activities which are directly related to the principal
business of the employer.4

19. Clearly opined by complainants that the equipment they

are utilizing to perform their work were not owned by respondent
LOGICORE, INC. but WATSONS DISTRIBUTION CENTER. This is
indicative that respondent LOGICORE is engaged in prohibited
labor only contracting.

“Xxx…3. Sa tagal ng aming pagtratrabaho sa WATSONS

DISTRIBUTION CENTER sa Binan Laguna ay wala naman
naibigay ang LOGICORE na gamit sa amin para sa aming
4
Eparwa Security and Janitorial Services, Inc. v. LIceo De Cagayan University,
G.R. No.150402, November 28, 2006.
Labor Code,

Article 107. Indirect employer. — The provisions of the immediately preceding

Article shall likewise apply to any person, partnership, association or
corporation which, not being an employer, contracts with an independent
contractor for the performance of any work, task, job or project.

Article 109. Solidary liability. — The provisions of existing laws to the contrary
notwithstanding, every employer or indirect employer shall be held responsible
with his contractor or subcontractor for any violation of any provision of this
Code. For purposes of determining the extent of their civil liability under this
Chapter, they shall be considered as direct employers.
 trabaho dahil ang mga forklift, pallets, trolly at iba pang
equipment sa bodega ay pag-aari ng WATSONS, wala po
na inissue sa amim na kagamitan para sa pagtratrabaho
ang logicore.…..xxX”

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed
of the Honorable Office to render judgment finding that (a)
respondent LOGICORE is a labor-only contractor; (b)
Complainants were illegally dismissed; (c) Respondent
WATSONS as the indirect employer is solidarily liable with
respondent LOGICORE; and (d) all complainants are entitled to
their monetary claims.

OTHER RELIEFS, just and equitable under the premises are

likewise being prayed for.

Muntinlupa City for Calamba City, __ May, 2021.

FLORES TALENS ROMANILLOS LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the Complainants
Suite 506 South Center Tower
2206 Market Street Madrigal Business Park,
Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa City

By:

ATTY. ARIS J. TALENS

Roll of Attorney No. 47352
IBP No. 141384– 01/05/21 - Laguna
PTR No. 2571581– 01/05/21 – Parañaque City
MCLE Compliance No. VI – 0019631 – valid until April 14, 2022

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. JOSE AMADO T. GENILO III

Counsel for the Respondent LOGICORE, INC.
GENILO& PARTNERS LAW OFFICE
Suite 4-C Future Point Plaza 2 Bldg.,
115 Mother Ignacia Ave.,
Brgy. South Triangle, Quezon City

ATTY. MODESTO M. ALEJANDRO

Counsel for the Respondent
WATSONS PHILIPPINES
10th Floor, One E-COM Center, Harbor Drive,
Mall of Asia Complex, Pasay City 1300.