You are on page 1of 5

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Pangasinan

MARGE, DISCO STU and ABU
Complainants,
-versusMR. MOE AND MOE’S TRADING
Respondents,
x------------------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
COMPLAINANTS, through counsel, to this Honorable Office, most respectfully submits this
position paper, and in support thereof, hereby states that:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages,
payment of backwages, severance pay, 13 th month pay and service incentive leaves, return of cash
bond, as well as prayer for award for moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fess.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Respondent, Moe’s Trading is a business establishment engaged in food distribution
operating in Pangasinan, maintaining at least one hundred employees.
2. Respondent, Mr. Moe is of legal age and the owner-manager of the respondent, business
establishment.
COMPLAINANTS
1. Complainant, Marge is of legal age, employed by Moe’s Trading as an account developer in
schools and to secondary account such as public transport terminals, bus stops, restaurants
and convenience stores. She had been employed since January 2010 until she was forced to
submit her resignation on January 2015. She was receiving a daily wage of P300.00 per day
at the time of her employment.
2. Complainant, Disco Stu is of legal age, employed by Moe’s Trading as Junior Sales Agent. He
was in-charge of store-to-store selling and collection. He had been an employee of Moe’s

Whether or not the complainants were illegally dismissed from employment. 2015 that it will be their last day of employment as Moe will be closing shop due to business losses. Moe that the business will be ceasing operations due to business losses. and return of cash bonds. Disco Stu and Abu were informed on February 14.00 and Abu in the amount of P17. Complainants. They demanded that they return to work but was denied. 6. Complainant. 2. Abu is of legal age and an employee of Moe’s Trading as Senior Sales Agent since January 2009 until February 2015. 5. Complainant. They were informed that they will just be called after six months if the current financial and business condition of Moe’s business improves without any written notice to its employees and to the Department of Labor and Employment of the reason and effective date of closure of its business at least a month before its intended cessation of operations.00. He was receiving daily wage of P200. Complainants.00 per day. 7. and salary for December 2014 had not yet been paid despite being promised by Moe to do so as a condition for her forced resignation.00 per day. her cash bond.00. She was informed by Moe that she should file her resignation by the end of the year in order that her monetary claims can already be processed. Marge posted a cash bond in the amount of P18. Marge was informed by Mr. severance pay. They then asked for the refund of their cash bond but Moe merely promised them that he would look into it. posted cash bonds conditioned as security for any loss or shortage in their collections during the period of their employment. 3. but up to the present.Trading since February 2010 until his cessation from employment on March 2015 and was receiving daily wage of P210. Disco Stu in the amount of P16. below the minimum daily wage prescribed for the area. Complainants. 700. 13 th month pay and service incentives. 000. 2015 and that Moe’s Trading normal operation continued. below the minimum daily wage prescribed for the area. 13 th month pay. Disco Stu and Abu learned that some of their co-employees were immediately called to return for work on February 16. Whether or not the complainants were underpaid. She was forced to file her resignation on January 2015. ISSUES: 1. ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSISON First Issue: Illegal Dismissal from employment . Whether or not the complainants are entitled to payment of backwages. 000. 3. 4.

Clearly. and.1 of Department Order No. There is no other option available to the employer except to close or cease operations.. The decision was made in good faith. the business did not cease. There must be a decision to close or cease operation of the enterprise by the management. “Resignation is defined as the voluntary act of an employee who finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service. that he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his employment. Disco Stu and Abu were illegally dismissed from employment because the three grounds enumerated were not present. the burden of proof lies on the complainant. In Valdez vs. the following must be present: 1. However. Moe’s Trading also failed to give notice to the complainants.Mr. 147-15 Series of 2015 of the Department of Labor and Employment requires employer to provide two written notices before terminating an employee. It is a formal pronouncement of relinquishment of an office. Second Issue: Underpayment .4 (d) of Department Order No. were informed that it will be the last day of employment as Moe will be closing shop due to business losses but after two days. Disco Stu and Abu. It must be made with intention of relinquishing the office accompanied by an act of relinquishment. and 3. on the other hand. The situation of the complainant during before the resignation is material in this case. the enterprise was still normally operating.” Clearly. However. 2. Moe and that she was illegally dismissed from employment. there was no voluntary resignation happen on the part of the complainant because she was forced by Mr. Section 5. National Labor Relations Commission and Nebusco. Inc. The management did not decide to cease the enterprise because after the dismissal of Disco Stu and Abu. Moe forced Marge to resign because the business will be ceasing. Section 5. the discovered that the business was normally operating. 147-15 Series of 2015 of the Department of Labor and Employment states that for a closure or cessation of operation a valid ground for termination.

vs. “The minimum wage rates for agricultural and non-agricultural employees and workers in each and every region of the country shall be those prescribed by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards. considering that as project development manager she was holding a key position in the company founded on trust and confidence and. hence. Third Issue: payment of backwages and 13th month pay and service incentives Article 279 of the Labor Code states that. Marge because. her reinstatement may create tension and strained relations. there is the possibility that Gucabans rejoining SMPIs workforce would only exacerbate the tension and strained relations which in the first place had given rise to this incident.. Gucaban. and 13 th month pay and service incentives because they were illegally dismissed. inclusive of allowances.” . Inc. 11 Series of 2014 of Department of Labor and Employment states that “The full amount of cash deposit deducted shall be returned to the employee within ten days from his/her separation from the service. “An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages. considering that the position of Marge is vital. complainants were underpaid. the complainants are entitled to payment of backwages. severance of pay cannot be awarded to complainants. Disco Stu and Abu since their positions are not sensitive position as the case Maranaw Hotels and Resort Corporation vs. NLRC. and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual. Severance Pay Severance pay must be give to the complainant. Cash Bonds Cash bonds must be given within ten days after their dismissal because Labor Advisory No. there is also the possibility of compromising her efficiency and productivity on the job However. In San Miguel Properties Philippines.” Clearly. the Supreme Court ruled that. This. Clearly.Article 99 of the Labor Code States that.