You are on page 1of 35

University of the Cordilleras

College of Law
AY 17-18

In compliance with the requirements in


Labor Laws 2

Illegal Dismissal of an OFW

Ynes Z. Mapagtampo vs. Mapagutos Recruitment and


Placement Agency and Kho Wah Wah Corporation

Members:

Labor Arbiter: Baucas, Stephanie


Labor Arbitration Associate: Garduce, Diane
Counsel for Employee (Complainant): Cabigting, Rafeliza
Mayaoyao, Judy Anne
Padrigo, Denver
Pena, Diane Althea
Counsel for Employer (Respondent Agency): Donato, Geraldine
Dulnuan, Elmalaine
Flora, Kenneth Jamaica
Masedman, Moises
Saavedra, Stephen Levi

Submitted to:
Atty. Malcom Bacuso

Completed on:
April 23, 2018

Section: JD-2

Folder contents
1. Complaint Date filed: April 2, 2018
2. Summons – Complainant Date served: April 2, 2018
3. Summons – Respondent Date served: April 2, 2018
4. Proof of Service of Summons – Complainant Manner: Personal Service
5. Proof of Service of Summons – Respondent Manner: Registered Mail
6. Minutes of the 1st MCMC by SEAD Date conducted: April 5, 2018
7. Minutes of the 2nd MCMC by SEAD Date conducted: April 16, 2018
8. Referral of case by SEAD to Labor Arbiter Date issued: April 16, 2018
9. Verified Position Paper – Complainant Date submitted: April 23, 2018
10. Complainant's Supporting Documents
a. Sworn Statement by Physician
b. Medical Certificate
c. Certificate of Fitness
11. Verified Position Paper – Respondent Date submitted: April 23,
2018
12. Memorandum of Agreement
13. Employer’s Handbook/Manual
14. Respondent's other Supporting Documents
a. Work output/Accomplishment reports
b. Pay slips and acknowledgement receipts
c. Employee’s attendance records
d. Team Controller’s Judicial Affidavit
e. Chinese Embassy’s Authentication
15. Labor Arbiter's Decision Date issued:
16. Proof of Service of Decision – Complainant Date received:
17. Proof of Service of Decision – Respondent Date received:
18. Certificate of Finality Date issued:

Republic of the Philippines


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch
Cordillera Administrative Region
Baguio City

Ynes Z. Mapagtampo,
Complainant

-versus- NLRC Case no. RAB-CAR-78569001

Mapagutos Recruitment and Placement Agency; and


Kho Wah Wah Corporation,
Respondents.
X---------------------------------------------------------------X

C O M P LA I N T

Complainant respectfully state:


1. Name: Ynes Z. Mapagtampo Age: 28 Status: Single Sex: Female
2. Address: #76 Baba Alley, Barangay Sapang Tagalog, Baguio City
3. Name of respondent agency: Mapagutos Recruitment and Placement Agency
Principal: Kho Wah Wah Corporation
4. Addresses: Respondent Agency: #143, Magnolia Crescent, Hogsmeade Village, Quezon City
Principal: #14 Di Tho Lhang, Guangzhou Province, China
5. Name of the owner/president: Mia Lyza Sumacla
6. Date of Departure (Phils.): June 26, 2017
7. Date of Arrival (Phils.): September 30, 2017
8. Date Dismissed: September 14, 2017
9. Nature of work/position: (Actually performed): Manufacturer (Per contract): Quality control
10. Salary Rate: (Actual): CNY 3,700.00 (Per Contract): CNY 4,000.00
11. Place of work: Guangzhou Province, China

CAUSES OF ACTION
A. Illegal Dismissal...........................................................(x)
B. Non-payment of:
1. Salary.................................................................( )
2. Overtime Pay.....................................................( )
3. Vacation/Sick Leave Pay...................................( )
C. Underpayment..............................................................(x)
Specify: Payment of her salary for 2 months and 14 days, Withheld amount for repatriation cost
D. Refund of Transportation Fare.....................................(x)
E. Others: Moral and Exemplary Damages, Return of placement fee
RELIEF

Complainant prays for the following:


Payment of:
1. Placement Fee
2. Repatriation cost
3. Salary discrepancy
4. Moral and Exemplary Damages
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Done in the City of Baguio this 2nd day of April 2018.

YNES Z. MAPAGTAMPO CMMP ASSOCIATES


(Complainant) By: Atty. RAFELIZA CABIGTING
Atty. JUDY MAYAOYAO
Atty. DENVER PADRIGO
Atty. DIANE ALTHEA PENA
(Counsel)
Address: 456, Igorot Park, Malcolm Square, Baguio City

V E R I FI CAT I O N

I, Ynes Z. Mapagtampo, Filipino, of legal age, a resident of Barangay Sapang Tagalog, Baguio
City, being duly Sworn to in accordance with law, state that:
I am the complainant in the above-entitled case. I have caused the filing and preparation of this
complaint and have read the contents thereof and declare the same to be true and correct.
I further certify that I have not commenced any other action/proceedings in any court, tribunal,
or agency involving the same issue and that there is no such pending case before the said court,
tribunal, or agency. If I should learn about the same, I shall report it to this Office within five (5) days
from knowledge thereof.

YNES Z. MAPAGTAMPO
CTC No: 15400000
Issued at: Brgy Sapang Tagalog, Baguio City
Issued on: January 5, 2017

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2 nd day of April 2018, in the City of Baguio,
Philippines.

STEPHANIE B. ACODESIN
Labor Arbiter – RAB CAR
Doc. No. 143;
Page No. 14;
Book No. XIV;
Series of 2018.
Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch
Cordillera Administrative Region
Baguio City

Ynes Z. Mapagtampo,
Complainant

-versus- NLRC Case no. RAB-CAR-78569001

Mapagutos Recruitment and Placement Agency; and


Kho Wah Wah Corporation,
Respondents.

X---------------------------------------------------------------X

SUMMONS

TO: Ms. YNES Z. MAPAGTAMPO


#76 Baba Alley, Brgy. Sapang Tagalog
Baguio City 2600

GREETINGS:

You are hereby required to appear at the mandatory conciliation and mediation conference of
this case to be held on two (2) settings:
1. Time: 2:00 PM Date: April 05, 2018 Place: DOLE-CAR Hearing Room
2. Time: 2:00 PM Date: April 16, 2018 Place: DOLE-CAR Hearing Room

Attached herewith is a copy of the complaint you filed before our office.

Your failure to appear in the two (2) scheduled mandatory conciliation and mediation
conferences shall be a ground for the dismissal of the case without prejudice.

This 2nd day of April 2018.

STEPHANIE B. ACODESIN
Labor Arbiter – RAB CAR

NOTE: FOR INQUIRIES, CALL TEL. NO. 074 – 422 – 3601


Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch
Cordillera Administrative Region
Baguio City

Ynes Z. Mapagtampo,
Complainant
-versus- NLRC Case no. RAB-CAR-78569001

Mapagutos Recruitment and Placement Agency; and


Kho Wah Wah Corporation,
Respondents.

X--------------------------------------------------------------X

SUMMONS

TO: Ms. MIA LYZA Z. SUMACLA


Proprietor, Mapagutos Recruitment and Placement Agency
#143, Magnolia Crescent, Hogsmeade Village, Quezon City

GREETINGS:
You are hereby required to appear at the mandatory conciliation and mediation conference of
this case to be held on two (2) settings:
1. Time: 2:00 PM Date: April 05, 2018 Place: DOLE-CAR Hearing Room
2. Time: 2:00 PM Date: April 16, 2018 Place: DOLE-CAR Hearing Room

Attached herewith is a copy of the complaint filed against you, dated April 02, 2018. A motion
to dismiss is prohibited, except on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, improper
venue, res judicata, prescription and forum shopping. If you fail to appear during the first scheduled
conference, the second conference as scheduled herein shall proceed. If you still fail to appear at the
second conference despite being duly served this Summons, you shall be considered to have waived
your right to file position paper. The mandatory conciliation and mediation conference shall be
terminated, and the complainant shall be directed to file a verified position paper and submit evidence
in support of her causes of action and thereupon a decision on the basis of the evidence on record shall
be rendered.
This 2nd day of April 2018.

STEPHANIE B. ACODESIN
Labor Arbiter – RAB CAR

NOTE: FOR INQUIRIES, CALL TEL. NO. 074 – 422 – 3601


Republic of the Philippines)
Province of Benguet) S.S.
City of Baguio)
x-----------------x

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, Hans Christien Andersen, of legal age, single, and a resident of 14 Richville Subd.,
Baguio City, Philippines, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose
and say:

That I am the Secretariat of the Labor Arbitration Associate under the office of Labor
Arbiter Stephanie Baucas Acodesin, in the Regional Arbitration Branch of the Cordillera
Administrative Region (RAB CAR), with address at Magsaysay Ave., Baguio City, Philippines.

That in my aforementioned capacity and as authorized by the RAB CAR, I had served a
copy of the Summons to Complainant in the case entitled “Ynes Mapagtampo vs. Mapagutos
Recruitment and Placement Agency and Kho Wah Wah Corporation,” docketed as NLRC Case
no. RAB-CAR-78569001, by personal service, to the office of Cabigting Mayaoyao Padrigo
Pena Associates, Complainant's Counsel of Record, with address at 456, Igorot Park, Malcolm
Square, Baguio City. Summons was personally received by Atty. Padrigo.

This 2nd day of April 2018.

HANS CHRISTIEN ANDERSEN


Secretariat – RAB CAR
(Affiant)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2nd day of April 2018, in the City of Baguio,
Philippines.

Notary Public

Doc. No. 153;


Page No. 26;
Book No. XIV;
Series of 2018.
Republic of the Philippines)
Province of Benguet) S.S.
City of Baguio)
x-----------------x

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, Hans Christien Andersen, of legal age, single, and a resident of 14 Richville Subd.,
Baguio City, Philippines, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose
and say:
That I am the Secretariat of the Labor Arbitration Associate under the office of Labor
Arbiter Stephanie Baucas Acodesin, in the Regional Arbitration Branch of the Cordillera
Administrative Region (RAB CAR), with address at Magsaysay Ave., Baguio City, Philippines.

That in my aforementioned capacity and as authorized by the RAB CAR, I had served a
copy of the Summons to Respondent in the case entitled “Ynes Mapagtampo vs. Mapagutos
Recruitment and Placement Agency and Kho Wah Wah Corporation,” docketed as NLRC Case
no. RAB-CAR-78569001, by registered mail, to the office of DDS FM Law, Respondent's
Counsel of Record, with address at 32 Brgy. Laging Handa, Quezon City, Manila, Philippines,
with return card under Registry Receipt No. 39873, dated April 2, 2018, issued at the Baguio
City Post Office.

This 2nd day of April 2018.

HANS CHRISTIEN ANDERSEN


Secretariat to the Labor Arbitration Associate – RAB CAR
(Affiant)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2nd day of April 2018, in the City of Baguio,
Philippines.

Notary Public
Doc. No. 153;
Page No. 26;
Book No. XIV;
Series of 2018.
Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch
Cordillera Administrative Region
Baguio City

SINGLE ENTRY APPROACH (SEnA)


(Per Department Order No. 107, Series of 2010)

Ynes Z. Mapagtampo,
Complainant

-versus- Reference no: SEAD-CAR-04140-2018

Mapagutos Recruitment and Placement Agency; and


Kho Wah Wah Corporation,
Respondents.

X--------------------------------------------------------------X

MINUTES
1st Preliminary Mandatory Conciliation Conference

Date: April 05, 2018


Time: 2:00 PM
SEAD/Venue: DOLE-CAR Hearing Room

ATTENDANCE:
The following were present during the first mandatory conciliation conference.
Ynes Z. Mapagtampo, Complainant
Atty. Denver Padrigo, Counsel for the complainant
Atty. Rafeliza Cabigting, Counsel for the complainant
Atty. Diane Pena, Counsel for the complainant
Atty. Judy Ann Mayaoyao, Counsel for the complainant
Mia Lyza Z. Sumacla, Proprietor, Mapagutos Recruitment and Placement Agency
Atty. Geraldine Donato, Counsel for respondent
Atty. Stephen Saavedra, Counsel for respondent
Atty. Jamaica Flora, Counsel for respondent
Atty. Elmalaine Dulnuan, Counsel for respondent
Atty. Moises Masedman, Counsel for respondent

The hearing was called to order by Single Entry Assistance Desk Officer (SEADO) Diane Garduce.

Atty. Padrigo, Atty. Cabigting, Atty. Pena, Atty Mayaoyao entered their appearances as counsels for the
complainant.

Atty. Donato, Atty. Saavedra, Atty. Dulnuan and Atty. Masedman entered their appearances as counsels
for the respondent.

Ms. Mia Sumacla, appeared as representative of Mapagutos Recruitment and Placement Agency and
the employer-principal, Kho Wah Wah Corporation. Ms. Sumacla submitted a copy of the Secretary’s
Certificate authorizing her to appear as the official representative of the respondent.

SEADO Garduce explained the process and purpose of the SENA. As the purpose of the proceeding is
to reach settlement, she discouraged the counsels of both parties from interfering with the proceeding
unless called for by the SEADO or the parties themselves. After which, she read the substantial
contents of the complaint and confirmed whether the complainant wanted to continue with the charges
stated in the complaint.

The complainant affirmed the contents of the complaint.


SEADO Garduce then asked for stipulation of facts from the parties.

Atty. Pena, speaking for the complainant, stipulated the following facts:

1. That the complainant, Ms. Ynes Mapagtampo was recruited by the respondent-agency some
time on June 14, 2017.
The defense admitted this as a fact.

2. That the complainant, Ms. Ynes Mapagtampo was recruited as a Quality Control Worker bound
for China.
The defense admitted this as a fact.

3. That the employer-principal is Kho Wah Wah Corporation located in Guangzhou Province,
China, whose is a major manufacturer of leather bags.
The defense admitted this as a fact.

4. That the monthly salary as stipulated in the employment contract signed by the parties is CNY
4,000.00 per month.
The defense admitted this as a fact.

5. That the monthly salary actually received by the complainant is CNY 3,700.00, contrary to that
stipulated in the contract.
The defense denied this allegation.

6. That the employment contract stipulated a period of 3 years within which the employer-
principal promises to engage the complainant as its employee.
The defense admitted this as a fact.

7. That the complainant paid a placement fee amounting to PHP 50,000.00.


The defense admitted this as a fact.

8. That the complainant departed from the Philippines to China on June 26, 2017 with the
assistance of the respondent-agency and assumed her job on July 1, 2017.
The defense admitted this as a fact.

9. That the complainant was however dismissed on September 14, 2017, barely 3 months after
working in the corporation.
The defense admitted this as a fact.

10. That the complainant was illegally dismissed and that the reason for it is unjustifiable.
The defense denied this allegation.

11.That the complainant was notified of her dismissal on the same day of her termination from
employment.
The defense denied this allegation.
12. That the complainant returned to the Philippines on September 30, 2017 and shouldered
all transportation expenses amounting to PHP 23,986.00, without any assistance from the
respondent-agency.
The defense denied this allegation.

13. That the principal-employer or the respondent-agency did not pay the complainant
repatriation costs amounting to PHP 50,000.00.
The defense denied this allegation.

14. That the complainant is entitled to damages.


The defense denied this allegation.

The defense stipulated the following:

1. That the respondent-agency is a POEA registered recruitment agency and has no history of
illegal recruitment or other anomalous activities whatsoever.
The complainant admitted this as a fact.

2. That the actual salary given to the employee was CNY 4,000.00 per month.
The complainant denied this allegation.

3. That the complainant was dismissed as she was not able to meet the monthly quota expected
from the employees. Employees are expected to finish at least 50 bags per day.
The complainant denied this allegation.

4. That the complainant was dismissed because of her persistent unreasonable absences between
July to September 2017. The complainant was absent for 10 days without justifiable reasons.
The complainant denied this allegation.

SEADO Garduce moved to clarify the issues of the case. Gleaning from the denial of the stipulations of
facts, it is clear that the issues are the following:

1. Whether the employer-principal underpaid the employee. More specifically, whether the
monthly salary actually received by the complainant was CNY 3,700.00, contrary to that one
stipulated in the contract which is CNY 4,000.00 per month.
2. Whether the complainant was illegally dismissed on justifiable grounds.
3. Whether the complainant was notified of her dismissal on the same day of her termination from
employment.
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reimbursement of her transportation fees amounting
to PHP 23,968.00.
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to repatriation costs amounting to PHP 50,000.00.
6. Whether the complainant is entitled to damages.

To narrow the disagreements:

1. The SEADO asked whether the employee incurred any absences during her employment.
The complainant said that she did indeed incur absences due to her constant bouts with colds
due in part to the sudden change of climate. The complainant explained that before departing
for China, she, together with other recruits, stayed for training in Manila for 5 months. They
arrived in China in the winter season. The sudden change from the warm climate in Manila to
the winter climate in China caused her to have a flu. However, she denied that she incurred 10
absences. She said that although she had a flu, she still went to work and was only absent for a
total of 4 days, all with accompanying sick leaves filed with the employer’s HR office.

To this the respondent contended that the absences on record, totaled to 10 days, that the sick
leaves filed were rejected because they lacked proof of sickness. The Applications for Sick
Leave were not approved because no certificates of sickness from a physician were attached.

The complainant answered that the employees were entitled to 5 days sick leave for every year
of employment; that she could not avail of a certificate of sickness from their company
physician because the company physician was away when she visited the physician’s office.

2. The SEADO asked whether the parties had evidence to support their respective claims.

The complainant said that she can submit copies of her Application for Sick Leave. The
respondent said that she can ask the employer-principal to furnish her copies of the denied
Application for Sick Leave, if need be.

3. The SEADO also asked whether the employer-principal had any evidence to show that the
employee was not able to meet the required quota.

The respondent-agency representative said that she can ask the employer-principal for copies of
reports on the outputs of the employees.

The employee insisted that she in fact met the monthly quota and that if it were the fact that she
was not able to meet the monthly quota, that she was not informed of her failure to do so.

4. The SEADO also asked whether the employee can present documents to support her claims for
reimbursement of her placement fee, repatriation costs, transportation costs, and damages.

The employee said that she can present her air ticket and transportation receipts as well as the
receipt for the payment of her placement fee.

5. The SEADO further asked for admissions from the stipulations of both parties.

Both parties insisted on their earlier admissions and denials and would not otherwise change
their admissions.

SEADO Garduce said that the repatriation cost and the placement fee asked by the complainant might
not be commensurate to the total cost of the case if it will proceed to a hearing before the Labor Arbiter.
The payment of docket fees and attorneys’ fees might be more than the amount being asked for by the
complainant. Atty. Garduce encouraged the complainant to enter into settlement and asked her to
consult with her counsel regarding a justifiable amount that would entice her to abandon the complaint
altogether or to partially admit to some stipulations in order to limit the issues of the case.

SEADO Garduce also encouraged the respondent-agency to consult with the employer-principal and
her consultants of any reasonable offer that may induce the dismissal of the case.

Both the complainant and the respondent asked for time to consult with their respective counsels and
come up with judicious proposals for the settlement of the case.

SEADO Garduce then said that the table will be opened for any offer from the parties to settle the case
in the next conference as scheduled in the summons and that the failure of the parties to agree on any
settlement from both parties in the next and final conciliation conference will render the case for
hearing before the Labor Arbiter, costs due to the parties.

The next and final conciliation conference is scheduled on April 16, 2018; 2:00 PM at the DOLE-CAR
Hearing Room. Absence of any or both of the parties therein shall render the case in accordance with
pertinent rules and regulations, without prejudice to justifiable reasons. The parties were dismissed
accordingly.

This 5th day of April 2018.

Prepared by:
Hans Christien Andersen
Secretariat

Affirmed and copies furnished:

Ynes Z. Mapagtampo Mia Lyza Z. Sumacla


Complainant Representative of Respondent Agency
For: Mapagutos Recruitment and Placement

DIANE M. GARDUCE
SEnA Desk Officer - CAR
NOTE: FOR INQUIRIES, CALL TEL. NO. 074 – 422 – 3601

Republic of the Philippines


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch
Cordillera Administrative Region
Baguio City

SINGLE ENTRY APPROACH (SEnA)


(Per Department Order No. 107, Series of 2010)

Ynes Z. Mapagtampo,
Complainant
Reference no:
-versus- SEAD-CAR-04140-2018

Mapagutos Recruitment and Placement Agency; and


Kho Wah Wah Corporation,
Respondents.

X---------------------------------------------------------------X

MINUTES
2nd and Final Preliminary Mandatory Conciliation Conference

Date: April 16, 2018


Time: 2:00 PM
SEAD/Venue: DOLE-CAR Hearing Room

ATTENDANCE:
The following were present during the second mandatory conciliation conference.
Ynes Z. Mapagtampo, Complainant
Atty. Denver Padrigo, Counsel for the complainant
Atty. Rafeliza Cabigting, Counsel for the complainant
Atty. Diane Pena, Counsel for the complainant
Atty. Judy Ann Mayaoyao, Counsel for the complainant
Mia Lyza Z. Sumacla, Proprietor, Mapagutos Recruitment and Placement Agency
Atty. Geraldine Donato, Counsel for respondent
Atty. Stephen Saavedra, Counsel for respondent
Atty. Kenneth Jamaica Flora, Counsel for respondent
Atty. Elmalaine Dulnuan Counsel for respondent
Atty. Moises Masedman Counsel for respondent

The hearing was called to order by Single Entry Assistance Desk Officer (SEADO) Diane Garduce.

Atty. Padrigo, Atty. Cabigting, Atty. Pena, Atty Mayaoyao entered their appearances as counsels for the
complainant.

Atty. Donato, Atty. Saavedra, Atty. Dulnuan and Atty. Masedman entered their appearances as counsels
for the respondent.

Ms. Mia Sumacla, appeared as representative of Mapagutos Recruitment and Placement Agency and
the employer-principal, Kho Wah Wah Corporation. Ms. Sumacla submitted a copy of the Secretary’s
Certificate authorizing her to appear as the official representative of the respondent.

SEADO Garduce asked the parties if the claims, admissions, denials, and other matters discussed
during the first conference on April 5, 2018 were properly reflected in the Minutes of the Conference
and if there had been any changes since said conference.

The parties affirmed that their respective sides were properly reflected and recorded in the previous
Minutes, copies which were duly received by them.

SEADO Garduce then called for each side’s proposals for settlement.

Complainant went first and tendered her offer: return of her placement fee, reimbursement of her
transportation and repatriation costs, and the wage discrepancy as alleged in the Complaint she lodged
with the RAB-CAR, dated April 2, 2018.

SEADO Garduce asked the complainant to tender a precise total amount for respondent’s
consideration, and to explain her basis for such amount. Complainant intimated that she is
authorizing her counsels to speak on her behalf with respect to the details of her offer:

Atty. Padrigo, on complainant’s behalf, answered that the exact offer is PHP 130,197.60, and that the
basis of computation of wage discrepancy is the difference between (a) the monthly salary rate stated in
the Employment Contract which was also admitted by the respondent in the last conference; and (b)
the amount actually received by the complainant.

Atty.Mayaoyao continued and presented the exact formula used in the computation as follows:
Offer = Underpayment + Placement Fee + Repatriation Costs + Transportation Costs
Underpayment = (Daily Wage Discrepancy per Contract and Actual Amount Received) x (Days
worked) x (Exchange rate for CNY as of April 16, 2018 per BSP’s Reference Exchange Rate
Bulletin as published on www.bsp.gov.ph)
Daily Wage Discrepancy = (4,000 – 3,700) / 26 average working days in a month
= 300 / 26 = 11.5385
Days Worked = 65 days (from July 1 to September 14, 2017, excluding Sundays)
Exchange Rate = 8.2821
Underpayment = 11.5385 x 65 x 8.2821
Underpayment = PHP 6,211.60

Hence:
Offer = 6,211.60 + 50,000 + 50,000 + 23,986 = 130,197.60

Atty. Mayaoyao also added that Ms. Mapagtampo is willing to receive what is just, based on the actual
work she has done, and that the amount they are asking for is already more than reasonable given the
circumstances.

SEADO Garduce then asked for the defense if they are accepting the offer, or if they would like to
tender their own. She reminded them that may take their time to pause and talk among themselves, or
call up the respondent-agency's office to inform them of the complainant's offer.

After a brief moment, the defense firmly stated their non-concession to the complainant's offer, stating
that such amount is unfair and unconscientious. Atty. Saavedra voiced out that they are only willing to
give back the placement fee of PHP 50,000.00, and reimburse the transportations costs actually
incurred by the complainant, based on the receipts of airfare and related costs to her flight back to the
country.

SEADO Garduce asked that the defense inform the room of exact amount they are proposing to the
complainant.

Atty. Saavedra clarified that the total amount of their counter-offer is PHP 73,986.00.

SEADO Garduce asked for the complainant's comment to the counter-offer. She likewise told Ms.
Mapagtampo that she can take her time to talk with her counsel before giving a response.

Atty. Cabigting, on the complainant's behalf, stated that they will not concede to the counter-offer,
further asking the respondent if they would consider offering a higher amount, repeating again that the
complainant deserves to be paid what she is due, on account of the actual work she had performed for
the employer. She said that the amount of 73,986 is not enough to cover for the actual damage borne
by the innocent employee.

Atty. Padrigo added that the complainant was likewise not afforded her contractual leaves, and that her
absences should not have been interpreted as negligence on her part. As someone who traveled
overseas for the first time, it is not abnormal that she had to adjust to the climate changes. The
employer should have been considerate in granting her requests for leave, and should not have been too
strict. He further averred that the amount the complainant is asking for is the bare minimum, and the
employer would actually save itself a big amount if it would accept their offer now.

Ms. Sumacla responded by saying that her company rejects complainant’s offer. She further stated
that their counter-offer is final and non-negotiable.

SEADO Garduce asked the defense to state why they are refusing to increase their counter-offer.

Atty, Masedman, on behalf of the defense, stated that they have definitive proof of the employee's
neglect of duties, based on the actual output reports and proof of absences, which the employer-
principal has transmitted to them, and that these were enough to justify her termination. The defense is
however willing to give back the placement fee, since the 3-year period of employment that was agreed
upon initially between the parties would no longer be a possible scenario. In the spirit of equity and to
show good will, the defense is also willing to give the complainant an amount to compensate for the
actual transportation costs she incurred on her return to the Philippines.

SEADO Garduce asked if the defense is willing to show the complainant the reports transmitted to
them by the employer-principal.

The defense refused to accede to the request, stating that they have the right to not be compelled to
produce evidence at this stage.

SEADO Garduce agreed that she does not indeed have the power to compel presentation of evidence.
However, it is her duty to facilitate a fair conference between two equal parties. She reminded the
defense that they have just stated that they are in possession of said reports.

The complainant commented that if the respondent truly believes that such reports prove that her
termination was just, there is no reason why they should hesitate showing it to her at this stage, in the
spirit of equity and to show good will, as their side previously said.

SEADO Garduce further explained to the parties that their full and transparent cooperation in this
proceeding will help them avoid potentially high costs if the case gets referred to the Labor Arbiter.
Furthermore, she advised Ms. Sumacla and the counsels for respondent-agency, who are all not
residents of Baguio City, that a settlement agreement will save them the time and resources, which they
can devote to more productive and positive matters. As an employment agency, if news will spread
about the current complaint filed against them, their agency might suffer loss of clientele and might
tamper their reputation.

SEADO Garduce then also advised the complainant that perhaps she could tender a lower amount
which may entice the respondent to settle. She added that perhaps the parties could meet halfway. To
be exact, she recommended that the average of their respective offers be considered by both parties,
i.e., PHP 102,091.80. If they still do not agree to said amount, they may negotiate further until they
reach an agreeable amount.

Atty. Mayaoyao, on behalf of the complainant, repeated that their computation is the lowest they are
willing to accept, and that asking for an even lower amount would violate the complainant's right to
receive the wage she was promised.

Atty. Dulnuan, on behalf of the respondent, likewise affirmed their refusal to change their counter-
offer.

SEADO Garduce then asked the parties if either would like to add any other comment or request, in
relation to the case.

After a brief moment, Atty. Pena, on behalf of the complainant, asked the defense if they are sure of
their decision not to settle. She further added that their side is willing to hear out and consider another
offer, provided that it is higher than PHP 100,000. She stated that this is their last and final offer.

Atty. Dulnuan, on behalf of the respondent, answered in the negative and affirmed their position.

SEADO Garduce then asked both parties, in a candid manner, why they are keeping more than one
counsel to represent them in a relatively small case, considering the fact that the acceptance fees and
other legal costs these days are very high.

Atty. Padrigo, on behalf of the complainant, answered that Ms. Mapagtampo's case is one of the many
pro bono cases that their law office is handling, and that Attys. Cabigting, Mayaoyao, and Pena are his
junior associates who are just starting out in the field of litigation. He had been bringing them along in
order to expose them to the conduct and nature of labor cases. Ms. Mapagtampo doesn’t object to this
and is thankful for the help their law office is extending to distressed OFWs like her.

As for the defense, Ms. Sumacla stated that five counsels were sent to ensure that their company is
well-represented, and so that their side can easily keep up with the speedy nature of labor cases. Like
the complainant's counsels, the counsels for the respondent are also treating this as a learning
experience in the field of labor law. Moreover, they don't mind spending more time and resources in
Baguio City because their agency is also holding other business-related matters here.

SEADO Garduce noted that both sides have agreed to the return of Placement Fee. She asked if they
are willing to enter into a Partial Settlement Agreement for this, to which the complainant promptly
responded that she is not accepting any settlement unless it includes all the amounts she is entitled
to.

With no other issues or matters to be discussed, and no settlement reached, SEADO Garduce informed
the parties that she will be issuing a Referral to the Labor Arbiter immediately after the conference,
unless the parties would both agree that the case be sent to voluntary arbitration instead. She clarified
that the statements made in the conferences are privileged communication, and that they shall not be
used in any arbitration proceeding, except for those stipulations admitted by both parties.

Both parties said that they will not pursue voluntary arbitration, as such would most probably lead to
the same outcome.

Hence, SEADO Garduce informed the parties that the mandatory conciliation-mediation period is
hereby terminated, and the case will now be referred to the Labor Arbiter for submission of position
papers.

The parties were dismissed accordingly.

This 16th day of April 2018.

Prepared by:

Hans Christien Andersen


Secretariat

Affirmed and copies furnished:

Ynes Z. Mapagtampo Mia Lyza Z. Sumacla


Complainant Representative of Respondent Agency
For: Mapagutos Recruitment and Placement

DIANE M. GARDUCE
SEnA Desk Officer - CAR
NOTE: FOR INQUIRIES, CALL TEL. NO. 074 – 422 – 3601

Republic of the Philippines


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch
Cordillera Administrative Region
Baguio City

SINGLE ENTRY APPROACH (SEnA)


(Per Department Order No. 107, Series of 2010)

Ynes Z. Mapagtampo,
Complainant
Reference no:
-versus- SEAD-CAR-04140-2018

Mapagutos Recruitment and Placement Agency; and


Kho Wah Wah Corporation,
Respondents.

X---------------------------------------------------------------X

R E FE R RAL

In view of the failure to reach a settlement agreement during the mandatory conciliation-
mediation period, this case is hereby referred to the Labor Arbiter for the continuance of the
proceedings.

Pursuant to the NLRC Rules, the parties are directed to simultaneously submit their verified
position papers to the Labor Arbiter, along with all supporting documents and affidavits, on or
before April 26, 2018.

The position papers shall cover only the claims and causes of action stated in the complaint. No
amendment of the complaint is allowed after the filing of the position papers, unless with leave of the
Labor Arbiter.

Within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the other party's position paper, a reply may be
filed on a date agreed upon and during a schedule set before the Labor Arbiter. Such reply should
likewise only cover those matters raised in the complaint and position papers.

Pursuant to Department Order No. 107, the following information are hereby provided:

1. Names and addresses of the parties


Complainant: #76, Baba Alley, Barangay Sapang Tagalog, Baguio City
Respondent: #143, Magnolia Crescent, Hogsmeade Village, Quezon City
2. Summary of unresolved issues
a) Whether the employer-principal underpaid the employee. More specifically, whether the
monthly salary actually received by the complainant was CNY 3,700.00, contrary to that one
stipulated in the contract which is CNY 4,000.00 per month.
b) Whether the complainant was illegally dismissed on justifiable grounds.
c) Whether the complainant was notified of her dismissal on the same day of her termination from
employment.
d) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reimbursement of her transportation fees amounting
to PHP 23,968.00.
e) Whether the complainant is entitled to repatriation costs amounting to PHP 50,000.00.
f) Whether the complainant is entitled to damages.

3. Causes of Action
a) Illegal Dismissal
b) Underpayment and Withheld Repatriation Costs
c) Refund of Transportation Fare
d) Others: Moral and Exemplary Damages, Return of Placement Fee

4. Reliefs Sought For


a) Placement Fee amounting to PHP 50,000.00
b) Payment of Salary Rate Discrepancy
c) Repatriation Costs of PHP 50,000.00
d) Reimbursement of Transportation Costs amounting to PHP 23,986.00
e) Moral and exemplary damages
f) Other reliefs as may be just and equitable.

This 16th day of April 2018.

DIANE M. GARDUCE
SEnA Desk Officer - CAR
NOTE: FOR INQUIRIES, CALL TEL. NO. 074 – 422 – 3601

CC: Ynes Mapagtampo, Complainant; and


Mapagutos Recruitment and Placement Agency, Respondent.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
REGIONAL ARBITRATION BRANCH
CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
BAGUIO CITY
Ynes, Z. Mapagtampo,
Complainant

-versus- NLRC CASE NO. RAB-CAR 78569001

Mapagutos Recruitment and Placement Agency; and


Kho Wah Wah Corporation,
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

POSITION PAPER

Complainant, through counsel and unto this Honorable Office most respectfully submits this
Position Paper, thus:

THE PARTIES

Complainant is a Filipino, of legal age, single and a resident of #76 Baba Alley, Brgy. Sapang
Tagalog, Baguio City, where she may be served with the processes of this Honorable Office.

Respondents are MAPAGUTOS RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT AGENCY, a recruitment and


placement agency, duly authorized under the laws, with principal office address at #143,
Magnolia Crescent, Hogsmeade Village, Quezon City, together with KHO WAH WAH
CORPORATION, a corporation existing under the laws of the country where it is situated, with
principal address at #14 Di Tho Lhang, Gunagzhou Province, China, as represented by MIA LYZA
SUMACLA, the proprietor of said corporation at the same address where they may be served with
the processes of this Honorable Office.

STATEMENT OF FACTS/CASE

Complainant was employed on July 1, 2017 as Manufacturer of respondent company and the
nature of her work was Quality Control Worker. The Complainant was on an eight-hour daily
work schedule until she was terminated and dismissed on September 14, 2017, without
justifiable cause and without due process. Her salary at the time of her dismissal was CNY 3,700
per month for a 48-hour work week.

Initially, the complainant was hired for a Monday through Saturday work schedule. When
employed by KHO WAH WAH CORPORATION, Ms. Mapagtampo entered into an agreement that
she would work a daily schedule, Monday through Saturday between the hours of 8:00am and
4:00pm (eight hours per day, 48 hours per week) as a manufacturer of Prada bags. The parties
signed an employment contract stipulating that the employee shall receive CYN 4,000 per month
or P300 (Three Hundred Pesos) per regular work but she was underpaid of CYN 3,700 per
month, which is contrary to that stipulated salary agreement.

The employment contract stipulated a period of 3 years within which the employer-principal
promises to engage complainant as its employee. As provided in KHO WAH WAH EMPLOYEE’S
HANDBOOK (Hereinafter ‘Handbook’), under the Probation portion; “Employees whose contract
is for more than one (1) year but not more than three (3) years are required to render a two (2)
month probation period”. Complainant started working with the corporation July 1, 2017 to
August 14, 2017 as a probationary worker. In the absence of notice by the corporation specifying
that it will no longer engage the service of the complainant, but that it will instead let the latter
continue from working as manufacturer, it shall be that construed that Ms. Mapagtampo was
already a regular employee of KHO WAH WAH CORPORATION.

On the morning of July 22, 2017, the complainant set an appointment with Dr. Lee Min Ho. She
was suffering from severe head and body pain. Dr. Ho prescribed medications and advised her to
take a whole day rest, but on July 23, 2017, and the following days, the complainant managed to
go to work.

On August 18, 2017, the complainant was unable to go to work because an appointment had been
set for her following check up with Dr. Ho. She managed to go to work the next day morning, even
though she was advised by Dr. Ho that she might have abused her health, and that this had been
causing her persistent severe head and body pain.
Two weeks prior to the dismissal, on September 6, 2017, the complainant duly filed her one-week
sick leave to her quality control team manager Mr. Sam Tim Wong. She was suffering from high
fever for the past three (3) days it and was duly approved by Mr. Wong.

On September 14, 2017, when the complainant was about to go to work, Mr. Wong texted her that
she was already terminated due to unreasonable absences and poor performance which resulted
to her failure to meet the expected quota. She was ordered to go to work on September 15, 2017
to get all of her things and severance pay.

ISSUES

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM


EMPLOYMENT.
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO HER MONETARY CLAIMS AND
DAMAGES.

DISCUSSION/ARGUMENTS

We respectfully submit that the respondents are liable for illegal dismissal, for dismissing
complainant without due process of law. It is a basic requirement that before an employee could
be dismissed by an employer, he/she should first be afforded due process. Furthermore, an
employee could only be dismissed for just cause, or after it is proven in a formal investigation
participated in by the employee concerned, that the accusation is true and that he/she is guilty
thereof.

The employment contract signed by the parties stipulated a 3-year period. However, without just
cause, the complainant was prematurely and illegally dismissed. This is an obvious manifestation
of breach of contract.

As provided by the Handbook, under the discipline portion; “Discipline in the company shall be
progressive, depending on the nature of the problem. Its purpose is to identify unsatisfactory
performance and unacceptable behavior. The stages may be; (1) Verbal reprimand; (2) Written
reprimand; (3) Dismissal in accordance with law.”

In the instant case, there were no verbal or written reprimand nor explanations given to the
complainant for the reason of her dismissal. Neither was she given any prior write-ups for
substandard job performance or any other company violations. A written notice specifying the
ground or grounds for termination was never served upon the complainant, nor was she given
reasonable opportunity to explain her side. It is then plausible to conclude that the complainant’s
performance is commendable and praiseworthy.
The termination was based on her alleged poor performance resulting to her failure to meet the
expected quota. As provided in the Handbook, under the Orientation portion; “all new employees
to the company shall receive an orientation session which shall encompass an overview of
general policies, procedure and operations. This will also provide employees, new to either a
position or the company, an opportunity to learn the performance expectation management has
with regard to the position in question.”

However, no proper orientation or seminar was given or even conducted. Mr. Sam Ting Wong, the
manager simply handed the Handbook to the complainant and briefly oriented her on the nature
of her work. There was no orientation was given for the practical and actual application of her
work. Furthermore, respondent corporation did not give the complainant the first notice
apprising her of the particular acts or omissions for which her dismissal was based, nor did they
giver her the opportunity to explain her side.

In addition, on the alleged unreasonable absences, the employee is entitled to sick leaves which
can be used for personal illness, personal medical appointments and visits to specialist. As such,
the complainant’s absences were justified. The sworn statement of Dr. Lee Min Ho and the
records on the employee’s attendance can prove that during the complainant’s employment, the
complainant only had one absence which was on August 18, 2017 when she had to attend her
follow-up check-up. Thus, there is no unreasonable absence to speak of.

It is then compelling to conclude that it is the ulterior motive of the respondent corporation to
dismiss the employee.

This is undoubtedly a violation of the right to security of tenure. Moreover, the imposition of a
penalty of dismissal for absolutely no offense is not only improper, but also inhuman.

On account of the dismissal, the complainant suffered serious anxiety, sleepless nights and mental
anguish for which the respondents should be held liable to pay in the amount of not less than
P20,000.00. In order to serve as an example so as to deter the commission of similar acts,
respondent should be made to pay the complainant Exemplary Damages of not less than
P10,000.00. As the complainant was constrained to litigate on account of the wanton,
unjustifiable and illegal acts perpetrated by the respondents, the latter should be adjudged legally
bound to reimburse the complainant for Attorney’s Fees in the amount equivalent to 10% of the
monetary award that may be adjudged in this case, as well as the expenses for litigation.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed from this Honorable Office that
judgment be rendered in favor of the Complainant with the following terms:
1. Finding the respondents liable/guilty for illegally dismissing the complainant;
2. Ordering the respondent to pay the complainant separation pay in the amount of one (1)
month pay for every year of service;
3. Ordering the respondents to pay the complainant the following:
a. Placement Fee of Php 50,000.00
b. Repatriation Cost of Php 50,000.00
c. Transportation Expenses of Php 23,986.00
d. Salary Discrepancy of Php 108,000.00
e. Moral and Exemplary Damages of Php 50,000.00
f. Breach of Contract of Php 54,000.00
g. Attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the monetary award, and other legal expenses
incurred in this case to be determined thru the sound discretion of this Honorable
Office

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are also prayed for.

Done in the City of Baguio, this April 23, 2018.

CABIGTING-MAYAOYAO-PADRIGO-PENA ASSOCIATES
(CMPP Assoc.)
456, Malcolm Square, Igorot Park, Baguio City
Counsel for the Complainant

VERIFICATION

I, YNES Z. MAPAGTAMPO, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose
and state:
1. That I am the complainant in the above case;
2. That I caused the preparation of the foregoing Position Paper;
3. That all the allegations herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge;

YNES Z. MAPAGTAMPO
CTC No: 15400000
Issued at: Brgy Sapang Tagalog, Baguio City
Issued on: January 5, 2017

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23 rd day of April 2018, in the City of Baguio,
Philippines.

DIANE ALTHEA V. PENA


Doc. No. 194; IBP No. 234189 (04-28-10)
Page No. 16; City of Baguio
Book No. X ROLL NO. 89234
Series of 2018. MCLE Compliance No. 0003480

SWORN STATEMENT

Before me, DENVER L. PADRIGO, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Dr. LEE
MIN HO who was sworn by me and deposed as follows:

My name is Dr. LEE MIN HO. I am over the age of 18, of sound mind and capable of making
this affidavit. I am a PHYSICIAN, with License No. 3980127, working at GHA GHA LING MEDICAL
HOSPITAL at Guangzhou Province, China. The facts and allegations stated in this affidavit are
within my personal knowledge and are true and correct.

1. On July 23, 2017 through a medical appointment, I spoke with YNES ZELOSO
MAPAGTAMPO, who was under my care and treatment for severe head and body pain.
2. On August 23, 2017, through a follow-up check up, I spoke with YNES ZELOSO
MAPAGTAMPO, who was under my care and treatment for severe head and body pain.
3. Furthermore, based upon the medical history provided by YNES ZELOSO MAPAGTAMPO,
the medical records, and my education, professional training and experience, it is my
opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the condition that necessitated
the above medical care was caused by the accident and/or incident of LACK OF PROPER
SLEEP, IMPROPER DIET, UNHEALTHY ENVIRONMENT, TOO MUCH EXPOSURE ON
RADIATION OR HEAT.
4. The attached medical records of YNES ZELOSO MAPAGTAMPO constitute a true and
complete copy of her medical records regarding the referenced treatment and are kept in
the ordinary course of business.

DONE THIS 18th DAY OF APRIL 2018.

LEE MIN HO
Doctor, M.D.

Sworn and subscribed before me this 18th day of April 2018.

DENVER L. PADRIGO
Doc. No. 194; IBP No. 19072 (05-17-03)
Page No. 16; City of Baguio
Book No. X ROLL NO. 50974
Series of 2018. MCLE Compliance No. 0002673
My commission expires: 2035

HO, RMT, M.D.


License No. 3980127 DEA no. 11973450

GHA GHA LING MEDICAL HOSPITAL


#123 ZHA KHANTO LHANG, GUANGZHOU, CHINA
GHAGHALINGMH@YAHOO.COM
PHONE: 486-2824 FAX: 000-678-8921

Clients name ___________________________________ Age _______ Sex_________


Address _______________________________________ Date ___________________

Rx

Signed:

___________________
Lee Min Ho, M.D.
Attending Physician
HO, RMT, M.D.
License No. 3980127 DEA no. 11973450

GHA GHA LING MEDICAL HOSPITAL


#123 ZHA KHANTO LHANG, GUANGZHOU, CHINA
GHAGHALINGMH@YAHOO.COM
PHONE: 486-2824 FAX: 000-678-8921

MEDICAL CERTIFICATE

I, Dr. Lee Min Ho, after careful personal examination of the case, hereby certify that
Ms. Ynes Z. Mapagtampo, whose signature is given below, is suffering from severe head
and body pain. She is unfit to go to work or perform strenuous activities.
I consider that a whole day’s rest, and thus a period of absence from duty today,
August 23, 2017, is absolutely necessary for the restoration of her health.

__________________
Patient’s Signature

Date: August 23, 2017

Signed:

___________________
Lee Min Ho, M.D.
Attending Physician
HO, RMT, M.D.
License No. 3980127 DEA no. 11973450

GHA GHA LING MEDICAL HOSPITAL


#123 ZHA KHANTO LHANG, GUANGZHOU, CHINA
GHAGHALINGMH@YAHOO.COM
PHONE: 486-2824 FAX: 000-678-8921

CERTIFICATE OF MEDICAL FITNESS

I, Dr. Lee Min Ho after careful personal examination of the case hereby certify that
Ynes Z. Mapagtampo, whose signature is given below, has suffered from severe head and
body pain.

I find that she has recovered from her illness and is now fit to resume duties. I also
certify that before arriving at this decision I have examined the original medical
certificate(s) and statement(s) of the case (or certified copies thereof) on which leave was
granted or extending, and have taken these in consideration in arriving at my decision.

__________________
Patient’s Signature

Date: September 17, 2017

Signed:

___________________
Lee Min Ho, M.D.
Attending Physician

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
REGIONAL ARBITRATION BRANCH
CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
BAGUIO CITY
Ynes, Z. Mapagtampo,
Complainant

-versus- NLRC CASE NO. RAB-CAR 78569001

Mapagutos Recruitment and Placement Agency; and


Kho Wah Wah Corporation,
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

POSITION PAPER
FOR THE RESPONDENT

RESPONDENTS, Mia Sumacla and Kho Wah Wah Corporation, through counsel, unto the
Honorable Labor Arbiter, most respectfully submits this POSITION PAPER and states that:

1. The Respondent Mia Sumacla is the proprietor of Mapagutos Recruitment and Placement
Agency. She is of legal age, married, a Filipino citizen, and with residence and postal address at
#143, Magnolia Crescent, Hogsmeade Village, Quezon City.

2. The co-respondent Kho Wah Wah Corporation (Hereinafter ‘Kho Wah Wah’) is a factory in
Guangzhou, China specializing in the production of luxury bags. Kho Wah Wah has already
engaged the services of the recruitment agency for almost 10 years since no irregularities in the
past have occurred. The company is pleased with the employees that the recruitment agency has
given them.

3. The Complainant Ynes Mapagtampo engaged the services of Ms. Sumacla’s recruitment agency,
delivering all the requirements for possible employment. The recruitment agency secured a
three-year contract with Kho Wah Wah for Ms. Mapagtampo as a quality control employee.

4. The recruitment agency has done everything on their part as a recruitment agency to properly
engage Ms. Mapagtampo for employment in Kho Wah Wah. Ms. Mapagtampo was briefed of the
particular details of her employment as a quality control employee, and the rights and obligations
bestowed upon her by signing such contract with the recruitment agency and Kho Wah Wah.

5. The employment contract of Ms. Mapagtampo has a duration of three years. However, under
China’s labor laws, employees such as Ms. Mapagtampo must first undergo two months of
probationary employment before she signs another contract making her a regular employee.
Such provisions are instilled in the employee’s manual of Kho Wah Wah as seen in Annex A
hereof.

6. Ms. Mapagtampo started her work in Kho Wah Wah on July 1, 2017. Since starting her job, her
supervising officers have seen that she has not been meeting the required quota of her work. Ms.
Mapagtampo’s work was slow, and the quality control of Kho Wah Wah did not meet international
standards, which is important for companies which produce luxury bags. Not only that, but she
got sick for how many days. This resulted to a slow down in the release of goods, ultimately
resulting to delayed deliveries to Kho Wah Wah’s patrons. The copy of Kho Wah Wah’s report is
attached as Annex B hereof.

7. Kho Wah Wah gave Ms. Mapagtampo several chances to redeem herself, being a kind-hearted
employer. However, Ms. Mapagtampo has always failed to meet her quota. Primarily, the reason is
her failing health. Finally, Kho Wah Wah decided to terminate Ms. Mapagtampo on September 14,
2017.

8. Kho Wah Wah believes that the termination was valid since Ms. Mapagtampo is only a
probationary employee. Kho Wah Wah did not furnish Ms. Mapagtampo a notice of dismissal
since such notices are only needed for regular employees. In line with the law, when a
probationary employee is not asked to sign another contract declaring her regularization, then
she does not become a regular employee. Such policy is also contained in Annex A hereof. Refusal
of Kho Wah Wah to make her a regular employee is justified since her evaluation documents has
shown that her performance as a quality control employee is below par, thus not meeting the
international standard required by the company.

9. Kho Wah Wah, however, gave Ms. Mapagtampo a separation pay of CNY 10,000. Her acceptance
of the separation pay is documented as Annex C hereof. We respectfully assert that since she has
already accepted and received her separation pay, Ms. Mapagtampo has no right of action against
Kho Wah Wah or Ms. Sumacla’s agency.

10. She also received CNY 4,000 as salary for two months. Her signed pay slips and
acknowledgment are documented as Annex D and E hereof.

11. Mia Sumacla was informed of Ms. Mapagtampo’s dismissal only on September 30, 2017. This
resulted to Ms. Mapagtampo failing to come back to the Philippines since her termination, being
jobless in China for over two weeks. But there was no earnest effort on Ms. Mapagtampo’s part to
also contact Ms. Sumacla or Mapagutos to help her in her distress.

12. Thus, it is respectfully asserted that Ynes Mapagtampo was not illegally terminated by Kho
Wah Wah. It is just that Ms. Mapagtampo’s probationary contract was not renewed for regular
employment because she is not fit to be a regular employee of Kho Wah Wah.

13. Also, Ms. Mia Sumacla does not have any liability in the matter since as a mere recruitment
agency, she has no hand in determining the fitness of Ms. Mapagtampo as a quality control
employee of Kho Wah Wah, Inc. Furthermore, she has performed all the obligation expected of
her as a recruitment agency under our current labor laws with substantial compliance.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed for that judgment be rendered
in favor of the Respondents and against the Complainant ordering:
1. That the case be dismissed since no illegal dismissal has occurred.
2. That the case be dismissed since Ms. Mapagtampo does not have a right of action after
accepting her severance pay.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the foregoing premises are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of April 2018 at Baguio City, Philippines.

DDS FM LAW OFFICE


(Counsel for the Respondent Under the IBP Legal Aid Program)
32 Brgy. Laging Handa, Quezon City, Manila, Philippines
Telefax No. (074) 619-0690

VERIFICATION

I, MIA SUMACLA, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose
and state the following:
1. That I am the duly authorized representative of respondent agency in the above
case;
2. That I caused the preparation of the foregoing Position Paper;
3. That all the allegations herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

MIA SUMACLA
Passport No. EB7890321
Issued at: DFA Manila
Valid until: February 18, 2020

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23 rd day of April 2018, in the City of Baguio,
Philippines.

S.L.N. SAAVEDRA
Doc. No. 212; Roll No. 46592
Page No. 6; IBP LT No. 04486; Baguio City
Book No. XVI; MCLE Compliance No. V-0000125;06/15/13
Series of 2018. Quezon City, Manila
Cel No. 09209623382
Email address: stephenlols@gmail.com