This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
REYES, Complainant, -versusBURAUEN QUALITY BREAD BAKESHOP, Respondent, x---------------------x RAB VIII Case No. 01- 00005 - 11
COMPLAINANT by the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Labor Arbitration Office, most respectfully submits this position paper and avers the following to wit: PREFATORY STATEMENT The Complainant in this case is SERGIO B. REYES, of legal age, married, with post office address at District 1, San Ramon St., Burauen, Leyte where he could be served with summons and other legal processes of this Honorable Office. The Respondent is BURAUEN QUALITY BREAD BAKESHOP, a business establishment owned by Dyna and managed by Nilda A. Roca, with business address at San Luis St., Burauen, Leyte, where the said establishment and representative could be served with summons and other legal processes of this Honorable Office. STATEMENT OF FACTS The Complainant was formerly a regular employee as baker of Respondent Burauen Quality Bread Bakeshop since January 1, 2003. The business undertaking of the said Respondent is to sell bread to the public which Complainant prepares in the premises of the Respondent. A copy of the Identification Card issued by the Respondent to the Complainant is hereto attached as Annex “A” as proof of the latter’s employment.
Likewise.00 per day. 2 .00 until he was illegally terminated on December 6. in 2006. the owner of the Burauen Quality Bread Bakeshop. his daily wage was again increased to Php 135.00. his daily wage was increased to Php 115. He was also made to work on holidays without holiday/premium pay.00 per day. In the year 2007 near the month of December. Leyte. the Complainant was made to sign in a blank payroll consisting of two sheets of paper and then in a separate paper containing the actual amount received as salary. However. The starting salary of Complainant was Php 100. 2010. New Years day. during paydays on the 15th and on the last day of the month. his daily wage was increased to Php 120. Hence. this was increased to Php 110. Complainant’s daily wage was again increased to Php 150. Then. All of the aforementioned daily wage rates are below the prevailing minimum wage mandated by law and given effect by the various applicable Wage Orders issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board – VIII. Complainant was not given the yearly service incentive leave of five days with pay in accordance to Article 95 of the Labor Code. In the year 2009. He worked for 9 hours per day with no overtime pay. 2010. his daily wage was again increased to Php 140.00. which is the fiesta of Burauen.00 and on January 2010. Good Friday and on December 8. it is possible that the Respondent can produce a payroll signed by the Complainant containing entries of wage which is at par or more than the prevailing minimum wage as it is easy to fill in the desired entries of the amount of wage on the blank but presigned payroll. Complainant was verbally terminated without due process from his work by Dyna. with the exception of the following holidays for which there was no work. In the year 2005.The Complainant worked for seven (7) days a week with no rest day or day-off. to wit: Christmas day.00 and in the year 2008. although in the previous years. The Complainant was not given his 13th month pay for the year 2010. On December 6. he was given such every December.
4.Likewise. Article 277 (b) of the Labor Code specifically requires the employer to furnish the worker or employee sought to be dismissed with two written notice. wounded feelings. especially concerning the daily sustenance of his family. moral shock. In support of the foregoing allegations is the Affidavit of the herein Complainant dated February 17. REST DAY PAY AND OVERTIME PAY..e. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT WAS UNDERPAID. THE RESPONDENT IS LIABLE TO THE COMPLAINANT FOR NOMINAL DAMAGES AND MORAL DAMAGES. 2010 was not given to him. i. sleepless nights. 2011 which is on the records of this case. Also. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED AND WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT WAS AFFORDED THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. 2. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY. ISSUES 1. his salary for the period of December 1-6. it is clear that the dismissal of the complainant was illegal thus he should be paid of his separation pay as provided by law. FIRST ISSUE: (Illegal Dismissal and no Procedural Due Process) From the foregoing facts. HOLIDAY PAY. as well as his verified Complaint dated January 10. 3. That as a result of the unjust termination of employment of the Complainants by the Respondent. the former suffered mental anguish. 2011 which is attached and made integral part of this Position Paper as Annex “B”. serious anxiety. WHETHER OR NOT. Insofar as the procedural due process is concerned. and social humiliation. no procedural process was accorded to him prior to his termination from service. a notice 3 .
83 thereof and work rendered in excess of 8 hours should be paid the overtime pay in accordance with Art.R. and also Article 277 of the Labor Code]. The subsequent daily wage increases granted to the Complainant over the years was not able to Inasmuch as the Complainant rendered 9 hours per day of work. and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and. and a subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him (Kiamco vs. was illegal [Polymedic General Hospital v. NLRC. he is entitled to overtime 4 . The complainant was deprived of his service incentive leave pay. 1985. The Labor Code provides for an 8-hour normal hours of work pursuant to Art. NLRC. THIRD ISSUE (UNDERPAYMENT OF SALARY) The Complainant was underpaid throughout his employment with the Respondent. (I)t must be borne in mind that the basic principle in termination cases is that the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause. No. 129449.which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omission for which his dismissal is sought. 64190. For instance. OVERTIME PAY) As to the entitlement of service incentive leave pay. 87. G.R. when he was receiving a daily wage of Php 100. In addition. REST DAY PAY. G.00. SECOND ISSUE: (SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY.00 in 2004 when Wage Order No. pay. clearly the complainant was not afforded of the procedural due process accorded by law because he was simply verbally fired from his employment. the Complainant believes that he is entitled to the same just like all other regular employees and as guaranteed by the Labor Code of the Philippines. HOLIDAY PAY. In this instant case. therefore. June 29. January 31. holiday and rest day premium pay. 134 SCRA 420. 1999). rest day pay and holiday pay premiums. the minimum daily wage mandated was already Php 195. No. RB VIII-11 took effect.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND MORAL DAMAGES) Cleary. November 17. PRAYER 5 .e. In the instant case. FIFTH ISSUE: (NOMINAL DAMAGES. the Supreme Court uphold the award of moral as well as exemplary damages in view of the bad faith attendant to the treatment of the employee. his right to be furnished of the two written notice prior to dismissal as specifically provided by Article 277 (b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines. 79907 March 16. Likewise the herein Complainant is entitled to moral damages because the dismissal of the complainant was attended by bad faith of constitutive of an act oppressive to labor. 1989]. 2004). 158693. the proper award is nominal damages under the Civil Code as it is aimed to vindicate the right to procedural due process violated by the employer. In the case of Lim vs. In a case like this. National Labor Relations Commission [GR No. the Respondent violated the statutory right of the herein complainant i. In the case of Jenny Agabon and Virgilio Agabon vs. the employer was ordered to indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory right which warrants the indemnity in the form of nominal damages. The Complainant respectfully submit that he should have been receiving the daily minimum wage so provided by the wage orders issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board – VIII and considering that he has not received the legal wage mandated by law. No. there is no other plausible explanation for the acts (or its conspicuous absence) of the Respondent of the manner wherein the Complainant was deprived of his employment except bad faith. for lack of statutory due process.R. he should be paid the salary differential.reach the amount prescribed in the aforementioned wage order which has since been superseded by subsequent wage orders. NLRC (G.
premises considered. to wit: 1.000.00 as moral damages and the amount of Php 50. it is likewise prayed unto the Honorable Labor Arbiter to order the Respondent to pay the herein Complainant nominal damages in the amount of Php 10. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 3. 2. February 24. Declaring the termination of the herein Complainant as illegal and further. 05045 (Lifetime) MCLE Compliance No. The PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (Counsel for the Complainant) Tacloban District Office Bulwagan ng Katarungan Magsaysay Blvd.0017029 (June 2. the 13th month pay for the year 2010 and his salary for December 1 to 6. HOLIDAY PAY. Tacloban City. 2011. III . Ordering the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the salary differential due to him.00 for not affording to the complainant the procedural due process. ordering Respondent to pay unto the Complainant separation pay. Ordering the Respondent to pay to the Complainant his SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY. NEGADO Public Attorney II Roll of Attorney’s No. 40747 IBP No.000. the amount of Php 100. 2010..WHEREFORE.00 as exemplary damages. REST DAY PREMIUM PAY AND OVERTIME PAY that were all deprived from him during his entire employment with the Respondent. Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are also prayed for. Furthermore. 2010) 6 . that decision be rendered. it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Labor Arbiter.000. 4. Tacloban City By: NEMITZ F.
ROCA Burauen Quality Bread Bakeshop Registry Receipt No._________ Date Mailed:_______________ San Luis Street Burauen.Copy furnished: (by Registered Mail) NILDA L. Leyte (VERIFICATION ON THE NEXT PAGE) 7 .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.