You are on page 1of 18

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

National Capital Region
Quezon City


NLRC NCR Case No. NCR-05-05071-15



(To Respondents’ Reply)
COMPLAINANT, by counsel, unto this Honorable Office, most
respectfully submits
the following comments by way of Rejoinder to
Respondents’ Reply, as follows:

“The name of the game is fair play, not foul play. We
cannot allow a legal skirmish where, from the start, one of
the protagonists enters the arena with one arm tied to his
(Separate concurring opinion of Justice Teodoro
Padilla in Republic vs. Sandigan Bayan [G.R. Nos. 109430-43
December 28, 1994])
"A party's falsehood or other fraud in the preparation
and presentation of his cause, his fabrication or suspension
of evidence by bribery or spoliation, and all similar conduct,
is receivable against him as an indication of his
consciousness that his case is weak or unfounded, and from
that consciousness may be inferred the fact itself of the
cause's lack of truth and merit." (De Leon vs. Juyco, [G.R.
No. L-46153, June 5, 1942], citing I Wigmore on Evidence,
sec. 277, pp. 566-568)
Complainant’s Rejoinder

Page 1 of 17

The handwriting on the wall is clear and unmistakable. in their Position Paper and Reply. as well as FABRICATOR OF LIES (p.3 position paper). The ultimate is the baneful goal of depriving Complainant what he truly deserves having been illegally and constructively dismissed by Respondents. It may be admitted only when the issue of pertinent character is itself involved in the case (Section 51.7 and 14 . it is legal truism that the language of Respondents’ legal counsel is deemed to be the language of the person who signed the verification of a pleading. In the instant case. posed the following questions: [a] Is this how a global employer treats a lowly Filipino worker like Complainant whose only motive is the defense of his constitutional right? and [b] If Complainant truly possessed the kind of reputation or character. without a tinge of doubt. with the indulgence of the Honorable Labor Arbiter. What Respondents are trying to establish sorely is Complainant’s lack of credibility which by legal standard is wanting of any probative value. opted to attack the very person of Complainant by labeling him as PARANOID (pp. SCRIPWRITER and DRAMATIST (p. a reading of Respondents’ position paper and reply instantaneously betray a baneful intent on their part to pervert the course of justice. Respondents’ continual and fierce forays of vilification and persecution. MALICIOUS IMPUTATION OF OFFENSE.1 Character Assassination What is most depressing in this case is that.1. while these defamatory statements were written by Respondents’ legal counsel. Rule 130. and PERVERSION OF TRUTH.19 position paper).4. are offensive and derogatory palpably calculated to dishonor and discredit the good name and reputation of Complainant. this broad range of Respondents’ [MIS]conduct includes CHARACTER ASSASINATION. Just a thought. It is a basic rule on evidence that the moral character of a party is generally inadmissible. which Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 2 of 17 . 1. who between the Complainant and Respondent Sukumar has the propensity towards committing slander? Corollary to the foregoing. In summary. Respondent Aswin Sukumar – an Indian national. Respondents. Rules on Evidence). Complainant. On another point. in desperate attempt to reject Complainant’s cause. SUPPRESSION & FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE. A mere cursory reading of Respondents’ pleadings revealed that the necessary motive behind Respondents’ conduct is to becloud the truthful accounts of Complainant’s resignation albeit against his will.Reply). 3.

the latter vehemently deny. below is a reproduction of Complainant’s pay slip fabricated by Respondents. that Respondents had portrayed him to be in their pleadings. It is discernable that Respondents were constrained to fabricate pay slips because they do not want to highlight the coach incentive pay that they granted to Complainant during the months of August and September 2014.2 Suppression and Fabrication of Documentary Evidence Annexes 1 up to 3 of Respondents’ Reply are not the official pay slips of Sitel. Below is a reproduction of Sitel’s OFFICIAL PAY SLIP. Upon the other hand. how is it possible that he was promoted twice by Respondents and permitted by them to stay in its employ for eight (8) straight years before easing him out? 1. Respondent’s grant of coach incentive pay to Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 3 of 17 .

The wicked goals of Respondents in suppressing the truth about the submission of verified medical certificates by Complainant are as follows: A] Heighten Respondents’ character assassination strategy that Complainant is an absentee coach. and Argana.3. Additionally. Respondents even indulged into corruption of facts. It should be noted that Respondents utilized the fabricated Team Performance vs. Reyes. to damage Complainant’s reputation in furtherance of Respondents’ character assassination foray.3.2 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that it was Respondent Argana who prevented Complainant Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 4 of 17 . Goal result as well as Focus Group Discussion result to beef up their malicious imputation that Complainant is inept in the performance of his duties and responsibilities as Comcast CSG coach. 1. Goal result as well as Focus Group Discussion result (pages #8 and #9 of Respondents’ position paper). Respondents went bolder with their oppressive acts against Complainant by suppressing the evidence that Complainant in fact submitted medical certificates duly verified by Respondent Sitel’s Clinic Team. as follows: 1. (Annexes “A” up to “A-10” and Annex “B” of Complainant’s Reply).Complainant will run counter to the contents of their fabricated Team Performance vs. Unsatisfied with fabrication of documentary evidence.1 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that former Operations Manager Glenn Kuan illegally enticed Complainant on 18 October 2014 to resign (please see p. and B] Justify their illegal withholding of Complainant’s salary.3 Perversion of Truths Respondents are manifestly drawing away the Honorable Labor Arbiter from what the facts are. All these verified medical certificates were copy circulated via electronic mail correspondence to Respondents Canda. 1. 10 of Complainant’s Position Paper and its attached Annexes “C-1”). In addition to slaughter of Complainant’s character and reputation as well as suppression and production of evidence.

and evidence against the latter in the possession of Respondents.5 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact of Respondents Argana’s and Lee’s contumacious refusal to issue Complainant’s certificate of employment despite written demands.3. The intention of Complainant is to afford his legal counsel the opportunity of prior review.50 from his salary due on 28 November 2014.” (please see Annexes “I” to “I-3” of Complainant’s Position Paper) 1. Among these requests which were contumaciously denied by Respondent Argana are (a) to be provided with copies of all documents. (please see Annexes “A” to “A-10” and Annex “B” of Complainant’s Reply) 1.3. Complainant filed a grievance in relation to the five – day suspension jointly imposed on him by Respondents Sukumar.3.3.3 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that on 25 November 2014.from participating in the administrative hearing by exhibiting cold disdain to all of Complainant’s requests in contravention of prevailing law and jurisprudence. records.6 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that Respondent Reyes humiliated Complainant on 3 December 2014 when he submitted the Reply to CARE form 1 (Notice to Explain) that Respondent Reyes served to Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 5 of 17 .896. Complainant sent his grievance notice via electronic mail correspondence to (but said grievance notice was treated with cold disdain by) Respondent Sukumar. Argana and Reyes. Respondents suppressed the verified medical certificates submitted by Complainant. The refusal of Respondents to issue certificate of employment to a terminated employee like Complainant is a patent violation of the Labor Code (please see Annex “T-2” of Complainant’s Position Paper) 1. Enabling him (Complainant) therefore to properly and intelligently prepare his defenses to the infractions leveled against him (please see Annexes “H” up to “H-5” of Complainant’s Position Paper) and (b) to be given with a written clarification what exactly is the scope or meaning of the phrase “xxx to assist you during the administrative hearing. To substantiate the illegal deduction.4 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that Respondents peremptorily deducted the amount of Php6. (please see Annexes “P” to “P-1” of Complainant’s Position Paper) 1.

1 Respondents alleged in their Reply that Complainant’s infractions are as follows: Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 6 of 17 .9 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that Complainant. in a hostile and furious mood and in a manner offensive to Complainant's dignity and personality. there is no case against Remion.7 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that Complainant’s plea for one day deferment so that he could consult his legal counsel before he acknowledge receipt the 5-day suspension notice that Respondent Sukumar was compelling him to accept on 21 November 2014 irritated the latter.4. Complainant in truth and in fact requested for a transcription of the call between Remion and the customer who accused the latter of exhibiting rude behavior on 13 May 2014. Respondent Reyes uttered – “Arvin. Without the transcript of call. sarcastically made a remark against Complainant – “Don’t you have your own mind that you still need legal advice before you affix your signature in the suspension notice!” 1.8 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that Respondents Canda and Reyes are fully aware that Respondent Sitel had been incurring pecuniary losses ever since Diosdado Remion was placed on off-the-phone status effective 14 May 2014 because the latter continuously receive salary without productive output.3. the latter will be suspended. As a consequence thereof. tongue lashed Complainant when the latter requested clarification why he was being charged of AWOL whereas he submitted duly verified medical certificates. Respondent Reyes. Anent the foregoing.3.4 Malicious Imputation of Offenses 1. (please see Annex “D” of Complainant’s Reply) 1.3. (please see Annex “C” of Complainant’s Reply) 1. But the Comcast Quality Team failed to provide him with the transcript of call.Complainant on 2 December 2014 with stern warning that should Complainant fail to submit his written explanation within 24 hours. do you believed that you are worthy of any explanation!” (please see Annexes “V” to “V-3” of Complainant’s Position Paper) 1. on his own volition. coordinated with the Comcast Quality Team as evidenced by an electronic mail correspondence dated 21 July 2014.

and b] Refusal to act on the instructions of Mr. illegal deduction from salary. Complainant repleads and adopt the allegations in paragraphs #3 and #4 of his Reply to Respondents’ Position Paper insofar as they are material.4). infringement of constitutional right to due process. Respondents maliciously suppressed the presentation of these email correspondences because they could not bear the thought that being managers and senior manager they would be penalized for gross negligence in the performance of duties.11) that the notice of suspension jointly served to Complainant by Respondents Sukumar. There is no better escape goat and later on as sacrificial lamb but herein Complainant. Respondents knew what was coming. copies of Annexes “C” and “D” of Complainant’s Reply are reproduced in pages 8 and 9 hereof respectively) The reason is plain and obvious. (for ready reference. and pertinent and not contrary to the allegations made in this Rejoinder. Remion who with his full knowledge was loitering for four (4) months and still receiving his salary (last paragraph p.) so that Complainant would be compelled to leave Respondent Sitel. etc. Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 7 of 17 . and Reyes on 21 November 2014 was valid in form despite noncompliance with the pertinent provisions of Sitel Code of Conduct. Given this scenario. imposition of misplaced superiority. In order to save their neck.g. Argana.3). Respondents alleged in their Reply (p. it is quite puzzling how it is possible that all the Respondents in the instant case were NOT AWARE about the existence of electronic mail correspondences that would clearly exonerate Complainant from any liability regarding the Diosdado Remion case. One need not stretch the imagination too far. discrimination. Remion to Human Resources (1 st paragraph p. 2. insults. Complainant further states that Respondent Sitel has the absolute control over its information technology and electronics communication system. relevant.a] Willful failure to act on the case of Mr. Kuan to refer the case of Mr. they had to devise a scheme to pass all the blame to Complainant. they displayed the kind of conduct all of which were punitive in nature and offensive to elementary norms of justice and fair play (e. Thus. coercion.

Respondents subliminally justified in their Reply that such provision cannot be made applicable to Complainant. It is mandatory that any employee similarly situated as Complainant must accomplish an Administrative Investigation Waiver Form as provided for in pp.47 Complainant’s Position Paper) insofar as they are material. and pertinent and not contrary to the allegations made in this Rejoinder. Respondents admitted in their Reply (p.Furthermore.27-28 of Sitel Code of Conduct. relevant. However. Reproduction of Annex “C” Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 8 of 17 . Anent the foregoing. Complainant repleads and adopt the allegations in paragraph #1 (p.11) that a waiver of right to be heard in an administrative investigation must be expressed pursuant to pertinent provisions of Respondent Sitel’s Code of Conduct.46 of Complainant’s Position Paper) and paragraph #2 (p.

Reproduction of Annex “D” Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 9 of 17 .

Complainant further states that in Tan vs.R. the Supreme Court said – “It should be stressed that the respondent company is bound to observe its own procedural rules. 128290 [November 24. G. 1998]. No. which were put in Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 10 of 17 . NLRC.

Its failure to comply with such rules was indeed unfair and arbitrary xxxx” (emphasis supplied) 3. As shown in the verified medical certificates issued by Sitel’s accredited doctors. Baquial (G.”). Respondents in p. peripheral neuropathy. migraine headache. 4. and acute pharyngitis. his sick leave benefit is intact and always converted into its cash equivalent. #9 of their Reply alleged that the following statements in Complainant’s position paper are self-serving and baseless for no evidence was shown to support the same. myofascial pain syndrome. to wit: Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 11 of 17 . cervical radiculopathy. to wit: “Complainant. the Supreme Court held.R. Respondents were unsuccessful though. vs. In Libcap Marketing Corp.. at the time of his coerced resignation. Furthermore. They thought that they would be successful in perverting the truth by suppressing the existence of verified medical certificates duly submitted by Complainant (copies of the duly submitted verified medical certificates attached in Complainant’s Reply as Annexes “A” up to “A-10. was suffering from a medical condition (both physiological and psychological) that requires immediate medical attention/ to protect the right of its employees to due process. No. #9 as well of their Reply alleged that the following statements in Complainant’s position paper are irrelevant and baseless for no evidence was shown to support the same. hostile and unfavorable conditions set for him by Respondents….” The jurisprudential guide is that the burden of proof rests with Respondents. 192011 30 June 2014). to wit: “… Records of Respondent Sitel will reveal that during the six-year period Complainant was assigned in the Virgin Media account. Respondents in p.” There is no evidence? This is the twisted narration of facts by Respondents. It was only after Complainant was transferred to the Comcast CSG account that his health drastically deteriorated due to the harsh. Complainant was suffering from the following medical conditions (physiological and psychological): cervical disc prolapse. cervical stenosis.

" Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 12 of 17 . 7056 [13 September 2006]) Additionally. Grefaldeo v. No. remittances and other similar documents — which will show that overtime. 2004] is also instructive.M. G. Respondents justified its request by adducing the unsound reason and selfserving allegation that the contents of Complainant’s electronic mail correspondences are baseless and imaginary (page 12 of Respondents’ Reply).R. Plus Builders. The truth is that Complainant had been very transparent in all his dealings with Respondents. A. one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. to wit: “xxxx Incongruously. It may be true. Jr. Respondents treated everything with cold disdain. taking into consideration the said contents of the formal letter of rejection. rather than on the employee to prove nonpayment. service incentive leave and other claims of workers have been paid — are not in the possession of the employee but in the custody and absolute control of the employer . No. Even where the employee must allege nonpayment. records. A. Inc. No. 156963 [November 11. that "the alleged memorandum pertaining to the meeting held on 18 November 1998 on the alleged P250.. differentials. the general rule is that the burden rests on the employer to prove payment. The Supreme Court in numerous cases held that silence on an accusation is deemed an admission.C. A. vs. the case of The Philippine American Life and General Insurance Co.” (underscoring and emphasis supplied) 5. Revilla. especially because he had every chance to deny it. Angelita Gramaje. vs. P-04-1892 [30 September 2004. Dela Cruz. Complainant tirelessly communicated with Respondents. No. Respondents treated all communications of Complainant with cold disdain. there was no response whatsoever from the aforesaid offices (underscoring supplied). They simply shrugged their shoulders down to all of Complainant’s communication efforts. The reason for the rule is that the pertinent personnel files. Lacson. Deafening silence can be considered a tacit admission thereof (Tan v.000 settlement offer was prepared by respondent alone without any participation from the company. MTJ-93-881 [3 August 1998]. Respondents beseeched the Honorable Labor Arbiter not to give credence to all the electronic messages sent by Complainant to all of them. as stated by petitioner.“As a general rule. payrolls. Upon the other hand.M.

(Annex “U” up to Annex “U-3” of Complainant’s position paper). and [b] Printed another copy of the same notice and sent it to Respondent Reyes via registered mail with return card on 15 December 2014 (Annex “V” up to Annex “V-3” of Complainant’s position paper). if untrue. it was complainant’s paranoia that severed his employment with Sitel.” Complainant repleads and adopt the allegations in paragraph #12 [Complainant’s Reply] insofar as they are material. 6.but the fact remains that no formal response was ever made by any of the three offices which received the same. The contents thereof. The supposition of Respondents that the acceptance of Complainant’s resignation letter using a fabricated documentary evidence clearly ends the employer-employee relationship is glaringly erroneous. The point in issue in the instant case is whether the execution of the resignation letter tendered by Complainant to Respondents Lee and Reyes Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 13 of 17 . the formal acceptance of resignation letter of Complainant on 18 December 2014 by Respondent Reyes [marked Annex “8” in Respondents’ position paper] is a fabricated document. Respondents alleged in page #14 of their Reply that – “Thus. it would be preposterous for Complainant to send his resignation letter to Respondent Reyes via two modes if Respondent Reyes truly and formally accepted a resignation letter alleged to have been personally tendered by Complainant on 18 December 2014.M. relevant. 12 December 2014 at 9:24 A. Hence. Complainant further states that foremost. Obviously.” (emphasis supplied). The two modes are as follows: [a] Sent another copy to Respondent Reyes via electronic mail correspondence on the following day. and pertinent and not contrary to the allegations made in this Rejoinder. the acceptance of his resignation clearly ends the employer-employee relationship. even if complainant mistakenly concluded that his submission of his resignation was by reason of his unbearable working conditions. would have elicited a stark and strong reaction from any of the three offices. in the end. 7.

Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing Corporation (G. the point in issue here is not the acceptance of the resignation letter. 22. Put differently. like a broken music record of the past era insisted that Complainant’s absences from work on the following dates were without valid or justifiable reason: Nov. 10. In pages #18 and #19 of their Reply. Complainant repleads and adopt the allegations in paragraph #2 [Complainant’s Reply] insofar as they are material.was voluntary or involuntary. No. 8. the voluntariness or involuntariness of its execution by Complainant. Respondents. This falls squarely within the concept of constructive dismissal that jurisprudence defines. it does not necessarily signify that it was also voluntarily executed. and unfavorable conditions set by the employer. In Mora v. whether the execution of the resignation letter tendered by Complainant and alleged to have been formally received by Respondent Reyes on 18 December 2014 using a fabricated documentary evidence was voluntary or involuntary. The jurisprudential guide is that onus thereof rests with Respondents. insensibility. In Peñaflor vs. It arises when a clear discrimination.R. 177114. 2014. XXXX While the letter states that Peñaflor’s resignation was irrevocable.” 9. and 24. 23. 13 April 2010). Simply stated. Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 14 of 17 . it is still incumbent upon the employer to prove that the employee voluntarily resigned. Peñaflor decided to permanently sever his ties with Outdoor Clothing. Precisely because of the attendant hostile and discriminatory working environment. as involuntarily resignation due to the harsh. and pertinent and not contrary to the allegations made in this Rejoinder. hostile. among others. we ruled that should the employer interpose the defense of resignation. Avesco. 17. Instead. relevant. 13. the Supreme Court said: The fact of filing a resignation letter alone does not shift the burden of proving that the employee’s dismissal was for a just and valid cause from the employer to the employee. or disdain by an employer exists and has become unbearable to the employee. The gauge for constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would feel compelled to give up his employment under the prevailing circumstances. Complainant further states that by suppression of the verified medical certificates duly submitted by Complainant to Respondent Sitel’s Clinic Team.

A. nopay policy. if adequate. Complainant’s resort to the barangay was again a legitimate exercise of rights and prerogatives as a Filipino citizen. will be justified. Chua Hiong. C. Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 15 of 17 . 14-93 issued by the Supreme Court on July 15.G. 1932]. because there would be no further harm to repel. this is an explicit Respondents against Complainant. Thus. to wit: “Self-defense is man’s inborn right. manifestation of oppression by 10. He may hit back with another libel which. his position paper.” Furthermore. [51 O. As an outgrowth of Respondents’ capricious imagination. In People vs. Undeniably. But that is not the case when it is aimed at a person’s good name. Complainant merely complied with legal requisites and jurisprudential guide before a criminal case could be filed in court against Respondent Sukumar. putting Complainant into deeper financial trauma. Once the aspersion is cast its sting clings and the one thus defamed may avail himself of all necessary means to shake it off. to wit: A] Administrative Circular No. retaliation becomes unlawful after the attack has ceased. 1993. Nowhere in any of Complainant’s electronic mail correspondences to all of the Respondents. In a physical assault.” This is baseless and devoid of truth. the Supreme Court succinctly said. Respondents maliciously imputed against Complainant the offense of harassment which imputation is false and untrue. and finally in his reply there is a single phrase whereby it is written – “Respondent Sukumar is a racist!” The emails of Complainant to Respondents Reyes and Sukumar wherein he ventilated his wounded feelings consequent to the kind of image he was made to appear by a foreign national before fellow Filipinos right in his own homeland when he was served a notice of 5-day suspension on 21 November 2014 was a legitimate exercise of rights and prerogatives as a Filipino citizen duly supported by jurisprudence.they thought that they were successful in their bad-natured design to consider him on AWOL and peremptorily applied the principle of no-work. they went further by accusing Complainant that he called Respondent Sukumar as a “racist.

In such contest of evidence. No. This principle has been extended by jurisprudence to cover doubts in the evidence presented by the employer and the employee. Where no less than the company’s chief corporate officer was against him. There can be no valid resignation where the act was made under compulsion or under circumstances approximating compulsion. particularly in the appreciation of the clinching evidence on which the NLRC and CA decisions were based. the cited Article 4 compels us to rule in Peñaflor’s favor. G. the Supreme Court emphasized three basic labor law principles. the employer bears the burden of proving that the employees dismissal was for just and valid cause.R. (emphasis supplied) Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 16 of 17 . Court of Appeals. shown serious doubts about the merits of the companys case. to wit: The first is the settled rule that in employee termination disputes. 21 January 2010). other than the fact of resignation. Peñaflor has.B] Section 409 of Republic Act No. at very least. Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing Corporation (G. 177114. No. Peñaflor had no alternative but to resign from his employment. such as when an employee’s act of handing in his resignation was a reaction to circumstances leaving him no alternative but to resign. 11.R. In Peñaflor vs. C] Decision of the Supreme Court in Agbayani vs. we find that Peñaflor was constructively dismissed given the hostile and discriminatory working environment he found himself in. particularly evidenced by the escalating acts of unfairness against him that culminated in the appointment of another HRD manager without any prior notice to him. Thus. That Peñaflor did indeed file a letter of resignation does not help the company’s case as. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991. the company must still prove that the employee voluntarily resigned. As shown above. the evidence does not support the existence of voluntariness in Peñaflor’s resignation. (emphasis supplied) Another basic principle is that expressed in Article 4 of the Labor Code that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of the Labor Code should be interpreted in favor of the workingman. In sum. 183623 25 June 2012.

B] Complainant’s suspension was legal. it is hereby respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered in favor of the Complainant and against the Respondents declaring Complainant’s dismissal illegal and ordering Respondents to jointly and severally pay Complainant the following: 1) Full back wages. It bears stressing that Respondents’ drama of intrigues and persecution continuously bring untold sufferings to Complainant and his three dependent children. At length.Last but not the least. twisted narration of facts and their ceaseless painting of a negative picture that stretch up to and cuts into the moral fiber of the illegally and constructively dismissed Complainant.” (emphasis supplied) 12.69 withheld from Complainant’s salaries were valid exercise of management prerogative. and C] The amount Php14. Respondents have not substantially discharged its burden of proving that: A] Complainant’s resignation was voluntary. premises considered. This is not the act of one who voluntarily resigned. Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 17 of 17 . his immediate complaints characterize him as one who deeply felt that he had been wronged.738. other than the self-serving allegations of Respondents. Complainant firmly believed that the Honorable Labor Arbiter will see through Respondents’ false propaganda and will not be misled into believing their lies as against Complainant’s pristine record of eight long and dedicated years of service in Sitel Philippines. PRAYER WHEREFORE. we have repeatedly given significance in abandonment and constructive dismissal cases to the employees reaction to the termination of his employment and have asked the question: is the complaint against the employer merely a convenient afterthought subsequent to an abandonment or a voluntary resignation? We find from the records that Peñaflor sought almost immediate official recourse to contest his separation from service through a complaint for illegal dismissal. inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time Complainant was illegally dismissed on 8 December 2014 up to the time of the final resolution of the instant case (Please see Annex “EE” of Complainant’s Position Paper for monthly salary and other benefits computation).

000 representing moral damages. Bulacan for Quezon City.19 representing payment for the five (5) days of suspension. Complainant respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises. and 8) Attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total judgment award.738. 4) Php5. Bocaue.000 representing nominal damages. 2015. Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 18 of 17 .000 representing exemplary damages.2) Separation pay amounting to one month pay for every year of service starting on the date Complainant was hired on 26 October 2006 up to the final resolution of the instant case. Finally.725.69 representing payment for the illegally withheld wages. illegal 5) Php500. 6) Php500. 7) Php500. Metro Manila. September 5. 3) Php14.