You are on page 1of 4



- versus COMPANY B,

(to Complainants Position Paper)
RESPONDENTS, through counsel, to this Honorable Office, respectfully
1. In his Position Paper dated 05 November 2014, complainant
alleged that he was an employee of respondent Company B
starting October 2011, and that he is tasked with the
responsibilities of a General Manager. He was supposedly illegally
dismissed sometime without any and, therefore, contended that he
is entitled to back wages and other monetary claims.
2. Complainant is not entitled to his claims because he was not
illegally dismissed. The termination is strongly supported by just
causes, and the respondent did not fail to observe due process of

3. Complainant A alleged that the assets of Company B increased,

and that its expansion became possible because of the consistent
compliance of Employee A towards her duties. However, the
contrary is manifested in the recent audit conducted by the
4. Records show that the company was in a critical status, and a
recommendation for immediate implementation of year end
closing procedures to prevent losses, which A failed to refer to the
board of directors and failed to implement. Employee A
manifested gross inefficiency, for it was supposedly his task, as a
managerial employee, to ensure that there be no acts or omissions
that may bring damages to the business or to his employers.
5. As to the non-remittance of the health benefits that were deducted
from the employees, Employee A cannot solely blame the HR
Department for the oversight on their part, even assuming that it
was their task to ensure the remittance of the said payment of
benefits. It is a part of the duties of the complainant as a general
manager, to ensure the compliance and efficiency of all
departments mentioned in his job description, including the
financial department.
6. The same applies to the incident of the oversupply of goods. As a
general manager, he was tasked to ensure th
7. Article 283 of the Labor Code of the Philippines stated that the
employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to
be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the causes
for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be
heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his
representative if he so desires in accordance with company rules

and regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the

Department of Labor and Employment.
8. The respondents did not fail to observe due process for
respondents gave the complainant an opportunity to explain his
side, through the Notice to Explain. Complainant requested for an
extension period, which the respondents approved. However,
when the complainant asked for another extension of the period to
reply, it is only reasonable that the respondent decline such
request, for it appears that the complainant is merely prolonging
the period so as not to answer the charges against him. There is
due process in the termination of Employee A for he was given
ample opportunity to be heard, and due to his failure to comply,
he is deemed to have waived his right to defend himself.

9. Since there was obviously no illegal dismissal on the case of

Employee A, it is irrelevant, and almost unspeakable to claim for
back wages and other monetary claims, due to the utter lack of
merit on the part of the Complainants claim.
10.It is almost appalling that Employee A had the audacity to claim
for back wages, whereas his termination arose from his
unequivocal breach of trust.

WHEREFORE, respondents respectfully pray that the instant case be
dismissed for utter lack of merit.


Other relief, just and equitable under the premises, is likewise prayed

Manila, 15 November 2014.