Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

MAE M. PIAGOLA, JUANITA C.

MARTINEZ, HELEN M. BORJAL,
and CORAZON C. TISADO.
Complainants,

-versus- NLRC-RAB No. 03-0333216

BUSINESSWISE INTERNATIONAL
RESOURCES INC.as represented by its
officer KRISTINA M. HONORAS,
KHADRAH ABDULLAH MATOOQ
ALMALKIand ANAQATICK CENTER
FOR SEWING AND BEAUTY,

Respondent.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

REPLY
[TO RESPONDENT’S POSITION PAPER DATED 03
MAY 2016]

Complainants MAE M. PIAGOLA, JUANITA C. MARTINEZ,

HELEN M. BORJAL, and CORAZON C. TISADO assisted by the
undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully states that:

It must be underscored that no less than our Constitution looks with

compassion on the workingman and protects his rights not only under a
general statement of a state policy, but under the Article on Social Justice and
Human Rights, thus placing labor contracts on a higher plane and with greater
safeguards. Verily, relations between capital and labor are not merely
contractual. They are impressed with public interest and labor contracts must,
perforce, yield to the common good. 1

1. Complainants respectfully reiterates before the Honorable Arbiter all

the allegations in their Position Paper and ardently avers that they have been
constructively dismissed from service due to patent breach of contract arising
from the acts performed both by respondent agency and principal. The
1
Brewmaster International, Inc. v. National Fereration of Labor Unions, 271 SCRA 275 [1997].
allegations pertaining to non-payment of salaries and other benefits are
likewise repeated.

2. Complaints admit that by the employment contract, complainants were

deployed as Dressmaker, Costume Designer, and Dressmakers (as reflected
in the individual employment contract attached in complainant’s position
paper) with a monthly salary of 1,875 SAR plus 300 SAR monthly allowance.
However, it must be emphasized that herein complainants applied for a job as
“beauticians” which was not reflected in the contract that was unilaterally
prepared by the respondents.

3. Complainants likewise admit the fact that they were deployed

simultaneously on 11 July 2015 and that no placement fee was paid by them
before they were deployed. However, complainants deny that the same was
shouldered by their employer in Saudi Arabia for lack of knowledge and
privity as to any arrangement pertaining to the said expenses between the
respondents.

4. Complainants vehemently deny that they were paid in accordance with

the contract, the truth being that complainants were not completely paid
withthe promised salary of 1,875 SAR plus 300 SAR monthly allowance. The
actual received amounts of complainants are respectfully enumerated and
discussed in their position paper.

5. Complainants fervently oppose and deny that the non-completion of

the 2-year period as indicated in the contracts were due to their own volition
to “pre-terminate” the same when they sought repatriation on February of
2016, the truth being that herein complainants were forced to seek such
repatriation because of the thoughtless breach of contract committed by
respondent ALMALKI when they were forcefully made to work as
house/domestic helpers in houses of other employers under grueling
circumstances. This material and patent breach made complainants contact
their families in the Philippines who, in turn, sought assistance with the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and Overseas
Workers’ Welfare Administration (OWWA). Thus, the repatriation was not
voluntary as complainants were left with no choice but to go back to the
Philippines despite the existence of the term of their contracts.

6. Complainants strongly deny the execution of the Joint Affidavit of

Desistance/Recantation, the truth being that complainants have not
understood the stipulations therein and that the same was unilaterally drafted
and written by the respondents.

7. To further substantiate the claims of breach of contract, constructive

dismissal, and non-payment of salaries and other benefits as averred by
complainants in their position paper and to directly address respondents’
position, complainants submit the following arguments for the judicious
consideration of the Honorable Arbiter:
I. COMPLAINANTS ARE
ENTITLED TO THEIR MONETARY
CLAIMS OF UNPAID WAGES AND
UNSERVED TERM OF THE
CONTRACT

8. Respondent posit that complainants were paid in accordance with the

agreed salary amounting to 1875 SAR per month plus a monthly allowance
300 SAR during their deployment in Saudi Arabia. Respondents further
manifested that respondents paid the Plane Tickets/Transportation expenses,
including the exit visa. It was also alleged that the existence of the Joint
Affidavit of Desistance practically eradicated any form of liability on the part
of respondent BUSINESSWISE and that there is no breach at all with regard
to the labor contract. While such position seemingly negated the imputation
of any liability to respondent BUSINESSWISE, the fact remains that under
the applicable provisions of the law, such position is unsustainable and run
against the very mandate of our Constitution regarding policies pertaining to
labor.

9. Complainants reiterate that they have not been completely paid by their
principal employer with regard to the agreed salary in the contract as well as
the additional allowance in the total amount of 2,175 SAR per month. The
summary of the claims are as follows:

Complainant BORJAL:

Unpaid wage of 9,525 SAR from July 2015-February 2016;

Monetary value of the 21 Vacation Leave as per contract;
Overtime pay for every day of work, in excess of 8 hours a day from
July 2015 to February 2016

Complainant MARTINEZ:

Unpaid wage of 10,000 SAR from July 2015-February 2016;

Monetary value of the 21 Vacation Leave as per contract;
Overtime pay for every day of work, in excess of 8 hours a day from
July 2015 to February 2016

Complainant TISADO:

Unpaid wage of 8,700 SAR from July 2015-February 2016;

Monetary value of the 21 Vacation Leave as per contract;
Overtime pay for every day of work, in excess of 8 hours a day from
July 2015 to February 2016

Complainant PIAGOLA:

Unpaid wage of 5,625 SAR from July 2015-February 2016;

 Monetary value of the 21 Vacation Leave as per contract;
Overtime pay for every day of work, in excess of 8 hours a day from
July 2015 to February 2016 amount worth 3 months (1,875 SAR x 3 =
5,625 SAR).

10. The claims of complainants herein pertaining to unpaid/withheld

salary/wage in the entire duration of their employment are indisputably valid.
Complainants worked for very long hours and at the end of each month, they
look forward to the promised amount in the contract so that they can
somehow remit any amount of money to their families in the Philippines.
Hence, complainants know very well when they are paid and when they are
not paid, including the amounts given to them for every month. Despite the
absence of payslips to which respondent ALMALKI never issued,
complainants kept personal record of the monetary amounts given to them so
that they would know how much more money was still owing to them for the
services they rendered in favor of their employer.

11. Assuming that the allegations of respondents are true, the payment of
Plane Ticket/Transportation expenses including the exit visa fees does not
obliterate the joint obligations of the respondents from paying the unpaid
wages and other monetary due to complainants. In fact, the payment of the
said fees and expenses are part of respondent’s obligation in ensuring that
employees who were improperly displaced from employment are safely
repatriated back to the county.

12. While respondents admit of paying plane tickets, they were remiss in
their duty of ensuring that all four complainants be flown back to the country
together with their baggage. Complainant BORJAL’s plane ticket did not
include any room for her luggage, thus, she was forced to leave her bag at the
airport and lost all the things she could have brought home to her family
which includes the following items with their corresponding amounts:

1. 1 piece of electronic tablet worth 498 SAR

2. 8 pcs. of perfume worth 400 SAR
3. 2 pcs. of professional scissors worth 400 Philippine Pesos
4. 2 pcs. hair pin worth 1,000 Philippines Pesos
5. 1 pc. of blower worth 199 SAR
6. 2 sets of shoes worth 140 SAR
7. 2 pcs. of bags worth 110 SAR
8. 2 pcs. of Facial Scrub worth 52 SAR
9. 3 packs of soap worth 45 SAR
10. 3 pcs. Lotion worth 51 SAR
11. 2 packs of Colgate worth 30 SAR
12. Chocolates amounting to 2,000 Philippine Pesos
13. Other personal clothing she brought to Saudi worth 10,000
Philippine Pesos
13. It is worth noting at this point that the document attached as Annex “2”
of respondents’ position paper clearly showed that the ticket bought for
complainant BORJAL was of lesser value than that of the three other
complainants. On its face, the said document presumptively proves that the
ticket bought for complainant BORJAL did not include payment for her
baggage which led to the eventual loss of her personal things and items which
she could have given to her family.

14. Also, the attached photocopies of money attached as Annexes “4” and
“5”, including their respective series, has no evidentiary weight considering
that the purported money they represent are not properly marked with
particularity for the alleged purpose to which they were issued.

15. On the issue of breach, complainants have sufficiently alleged that they
were forced to work as house/domestic helpers for other employers. This fact
alone constitutes as a material breach on the provisions of the labor contract
issued by the respondents to the complainants which led to the constructive
dismissal of herein complainants from service. Such breach, as previously
argued in complainants’ position paper, is an [a]ct of clear discrimination,
insensibility, or disdain by the employer [which] became unbearable on the
part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to
forego his continued employment.2

II. THE AFFIDAVIT OF

DESISTANCE/RECANTATION IS
NOT VALID AND THE CONTENTS
THEREOF ARE NOT LEGALLY
BINDING TO COMPLAINANTS

16. To negate any liability arising from the present case before the
Honorable Arbiter, respondents presented an Affidavit of
Desistance/Recantation, attached in respondents’ position paper as Annex
“7”.

17. Complainants respectfully submit before the Honorable Court that

such document was NOT explained to them in a language that they know and
understand, and that the stipulations therein were not thoroughly discussed
with them in such a manner that could understand the rights they were
relinquishing. Further, the signatures of the complainants appearing in the
same document were deceitfully and hastily procured.

18. A careful perusal of the document would reveal that the signatures of
complainants were procured by respondents on 20 February 2016, the very
same day when complainants arrived in the Philippines from Saudi Arabia.
Complainants would like to emphasize before the Honorable Arbiter that
respondents fetched them from the airport and brought them to Savory

2
Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc., v. Catinoy, 359 SCRA 686 [2001].
restaurant beside the Mall of Asia in Pasay City where they were asked to sign
the same document in exchange for an “allowance” in the amount of Four
Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00). During the said time, complainants had not
been able to bring home any amount of money from Saudi and were too tired
from travel to argue with respondents’ representative with regard to their
unpaid wages. However, respondents’ representative insisted that they will not
give the said allowance if they will not sign. It was further represented to the
complainants that such document was merely a formality in receiving the
“allowance” and nothing else.

19. The irregularity of the document becomes more apparent when

respondents tried to give the said document some form of legality by
attempting to have the same notarized. As can be clearly seen from the
document, the notarization came two days after the complainants placed their
signature on the said document. Thus, the said document was not subscribed
and sworn to before a competent notary public since complainants never
appeared before the said officer.

20. As correctly cited by the respondents, the requisites for a valid

quitclaim are as follows:

1. That there was no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the

parties;
2. That consideration for the quitclaim is credible and
reasonable;
3. That the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public
policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to third person
with a right recognized by law.3

21. In view of the surrounding circumstances to which the complainants

were made to sign the document when taken against the elements of a valid
waiver, it is evident that the affidavit of desistance/recantation is not binding to
complainants considering the absence of all the foregoing elements. Firstly,
that complainants were deceived to sign the document in exchange for the
allowance amounting to Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00). Secondly, that
there is NO CONSIDERATION for the quitclaim or waiver of rights that is
credible and reasonable. Lastly, that such contract is contrary to law and
public policy on labor contracts, the same being oppressive and limitative of
the rights and recourse of complainants to seek proper and legal redress with
regard to their unpaid wages, damages for breach of their employment
contract, and other monetary claims available under the law. Thus, the
affidavit of desistance which was unilaterally executed by respondents has no
legal effect and must be struck down for being contrary to law and public
policy.

3
Danza Intercontinental, Inc. v. Daguman, G.R. No. 154368, 15 April 2005.
II. COMPLAINANTS ARE
ENTITLED TO DAMAGES AND
ATTORNEY’S FEES

Complaints respectfully reiterate the following allegations before the

Honorable Arbiter to support their claims of damages:

22. Complainant BORJAL is entitled to the amount of 1,525 SAR plus

13,400 Philippine Peso which represents the value of her lost baggage and the
contents thereof. Considering that it was respondent BUSINESSWISE who
bought the ticket for her to be repatriated to the Philippines, the absence of
any luggage allowance for complainant BORJAL which caused the
unfortunate loss of her luggage can only be attributed to the negligence and
indifference of the officers of respondent BUSINESSWISE. In the interest of
an orderly administration of justice, the foregoing amount should be awarded
to the said complainant.

23. Further, because of the constructive dismissal which amounted to illegal

and baseless termination of complainants’ employment, they suffered mental
anguish, serious anxiety and mild depression arising from the forceful
directive of having them work as domestic helpers, for which they should be
compensated by way of moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 EACH.

24. Moreover, considering that a constructive dismissal is equivalent to an

illegal dismissal, complainants herein are entitled to Nominal damages in the
amount of P30,000.00 EACH pursuant to existing laws and jurisprudence.

25. Also, to deter other employers from future violations of the statutory
due process emanating from the rights of employees and, at the very least,
provide for vindication or recognition of this fundamental right granted to the
latter under the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules, complainants must
also be awarded with exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00
EACH.

26. Finally, in view of the reckless and wanton attitude of the

respondents in terminating the employment of complainants, they were
constrained to seek the assistance of the Public Attorney’s Office to bring the
present action and pay other expenses. While the legal services of the
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE are extended to complainant for free, the
same does not preclude the pronouncement of attorney’s fees. Section 14-D
(2nd paragraph) of Republic Act No. 9406 provides:

“The costs of the suit, attorney’s fees and contingent fees

imposed upon the adversary of the PAO clients after a successful
litigation shall be deposited in the National Treasury as trust
fund and shall be disbursed for special allowances of authorized
officials and lawyers of the PAO.”
27. Thus, respondents should be made to pay Attorney’s fees in the
amount judiciously determined as reasonable by the Honorable Arbiter.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

that this Honorable Office that an Order be issued declaring the breach of
the Complainants’ employment contract as illegal and contrary to law and to
order respondents:

1. To pay complainants the unpaid wages and overtime payment as stated

individually in this Position Paper, including the 21 days of Vacation Leave for
the services rendered by complainants from July 2015 to February 2016;

2. To pay each complainant the amount of 11,250 SAR EACH,

representing three 6-month worth of wage for the unexpired portion of the
contract;

3. To pay complainant BORJAL actual damages amounting to1,525 SAR

plus 13,400 Philippine Peso which represents the value of her lost baggage
and the contents thereof;

3. To pay Nominal, Moral and Exemplary damages and Attorney’s fees;

Such other just and equitable reliefs under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Quezon City for Mandaluyong City, 24 May 2016.

Complainants:

MAE M. PIAGOLA JUANITA C. MARTINEZ

HELEN M. BORJAL CORAZON C. TISADO

 Assisted by:

The Department of Justice

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
QUEZON CITY DISTRICT OFFICE
B-29Hall of Justice, Diliman, Quezon City

JOSE MARIA G. MENDOZA

Public Attorney
Roll of Attorneys No. 64826
IBP Lifetime No. 0982800
PTR No. 2181928/ Quezon City/ 05 January 2016
(Awaiting for Compliance Certificate from New Era
University College of Law)

cf: BUSINESSWISE INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES, INC.

Respondent-Corporation
1325 Unit 2A-2D, M. Adriatico Street,
Ermita, Manila NCR 1000
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
QUEZON CITY )SS.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

WE, MAE M. PIAGOLA, JUANITA C. MARTINEZ, HELEN M.

BORJAL, and CORAZON C. TISADO, all of legal age, Filipino, and are
duly certified residents of Mandaluyong City, after having been duly sworn to
in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state that:

1. That we are the complainants in the above-entitled case;

2. That we have caused the preparation of the foregoing

Position Paper;

3. That we have read and understood the allegations

contained therein and the same are true and correct based on
our own personal knowledge;

4. That we further certify that we have not heretofore

commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same
issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
tribunal or agency; that to the best of our knowledge, no such
action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court
of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; that if we should
thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed
or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals,
or any other tribunal or agency, we will report that fact within ten
(10) days from date of notice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our signature

this 24TH day of MAY 2016 in Quezon City

MAE M. PIAGOLA JUANITA C. MARTINEZ

HELEN M. BORJAL CORAZON C. TISADO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 24th day of MAY

2016 in Quezon City.