You are on page 1of 3

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment


NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

ANTHONY YU and LORISA CATRE,


Complainant,

-versus- NLRC NCR CASE NO. 09 13420 12

IOPEX TECHNOLOGIES PHILS., INC.,


GILBERT ORENCIA;
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------------------x

REPLY
COMPLAINANTS, through counsel, and unto the Honorable Office, most
respectfully aver as follows:

COMPLAINANTS WERE SUBJECTED TO DISCRIMINATION


FOR SIMPLY COMPLAINING ABOUT THEIR
SSS PAYMENTS AND UNPAID BONUSES

Our Labor Code provides that:

Art. 118. RETALIATORY MEASURES. It shall be


UNLAWFUL for an EMPLOYER to refuse to pay or
reduce the wages and benefits, discharge or in any
manner DISCRIMINATE against any employee who has
filed any complaint or instituted any proceeding under
this Title or has testified or is about to testify in such
proceedings. (Emphasis ours.)

To reiterate, complainant Yu's hardship with the company began when he


tried to apply for a SALARY LOAN with the Social Security System (SSS), but was
DENIED by reason of the FAILURE of respondent IOPEX to properly remit his
monthly contributions. Complainant Yu raised the matter to the respondents and
was promised that they will look into the matter without delay. After several weeks
have gone by, complainant Yu tried to avail of his SSS salary loan but was AGAIN
DENIED by the SSS. Confused, complainant Yu asked his co-workers about it
and he found out that they have similar experiences with their SSS contributions.
In their short-sightedness, respondents saw complainant Yu's action of talking to

1
his co-workers about his SSS problem as sowing DISCONTENT among the
workforce.

From that moment on, complainant Yu's relationship with the respondents
turned bad. In a bid to force the said complainant to resign from work,
respondents began to DISCRIMINATE against complainant Yu, as shown by
disputes regarding leave credits, non-payment of bonuses, illegal deductions in
his salary amounting to thousands of pesos; to downright rejection on his
application for promotion in spite of the fact that said complainant was an
exemplary worker and is very much qualified for a promotion. Accordingly,
complainant Yu on January 14, 2013 had no other recourse but to consider his
employment terminated on account of the discrimination and oppressive work
conditions placed upon him by the respondents.

On the other hand, from the moment complainant Catre complained about
her EARNED BONUSES, the complainant suffered discrimination and humiliation
in the hands of the respondents. She was subjected to unfair treatment and false
accusations, as shown by the BASELESS citations for alleged violations of
company rules (ANNEXES B 1-3.) Prior to this, complainant was an
EXEMPLARY EMPLOYEE as evidenced by her “PROMOTION LETTER” given to
her by the respondents, which is attached to respondents’ position paper as
Annex 2.

From the foregoing, it is very clear that a relatively SIMPLE


misunderstanding arising from disputes on bonuses turned into a NIGHTMARE
for the complainant on account of the evident discrimination, overall
unprofessionalism on the part of the respondent company and its officers, and
veiled THREATS and INTIMIDATION on the person of the complainant. This left
complainant Catre with no other recourse but to treat herself as constructively
terminated in view of such oppressive work conditions placed upon her by the
respondents.

Such RETALIATORY MEASURES undertaken by the respondents when


the complainants complained about the company’s SSS payments and their
UNPAID bonuses are among those considered by law as UNLAWFUL and clearly
shows the BAD FAITH on the part of the respondents.

As ruled by the High Court: “Constructive dismissal exists where there is


cessation of work because "continued employment is rendered impossible,
unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution
in pay" and other benefits. Aptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting
to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not, constructive dismissal may,
likewise, exist if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an
employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could
foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment. (.
MORALES vs. HARBOUR CENTRE PORT TERMINAL, INC., G.R. No. 174208,
January 25, 2012; citing the cases of Globe Telecom, Inc. v. Florendo-Flores, 438
Phil. 756, 766 (2002); Philippine Japan Active Carbon Corporation v. NLRC, et al.,
253 Phil. 149, 152, (1989); Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club v. NLRC, G.R. No.

2
154503, 29 February 2008, 547 SCRA 220, 236 and Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc. v.
Catinoy, 412 Phil. 295, 306)

In this regard, complainants are adopting as common exhibits respondents’


Annex 1-A of their Position Paper which is the employment contract or “Job offer
sheet” of complainant Catre and Annex 3-A which is the EMPLOYMENT
CONTRACTS or “Job offer sheet” of complainant Yu.

It is very clear from the foregoing employment contracts that the


complainants are very much ENTITLED to the aforesaid bonuses which remain
UNPAID to this date. Respondents’ unjust refusal to pay the same and thereafter
subjecting the complainants to discrimination clearly show the evident BAD FAITH
of their part.

Finally, the alleged absences committed by the complainants as alleged by


the respondents in their position papers are a DIRECT RESULT of the
DISCRIMINATION and THREATS which they employed against the complainants,
which forced them to file the present case for constructive dismissal.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this


Honorable Office to render judgment in favor of the complainants and against the
respondents as stated in their Position Paper.

Other just and equitable remedies are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, February 28, 2012.

ATTY. PEARLITO B. CAMPANILLA


Suite B 2nd Floor Overland Park Bldg.,
No. 245 Banawe St. cor. Quezon Ave., Q.C
PTR 772308 01-18-13 QC
IBP Life 010564 2-3-12 Pasig City
Roll No. 37522
MCLE Compliance No. III - 0015235

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. EDWIN CACAYORIN


37th floor, LKG Tower, 6801 Ayala Ave., Makati City

IOPEX TECHNOLOGIES PHILS., INC.


GILBERT ORENCIA
12F Net Lima Bldg., 5th Ave. cor. 27th St., BGC, Taguig

You might also like