REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

REGIONAL ARBITRATION BRANCH NO. 1
SAN FERNANDO CITY, LA UNION

ROMMEL F. DELA CRUZ

Complainant,
-versus-
L.C. MANPOWER EXPERTISE CORPORATION,
Respondent
NLRC CASE NO. RAB-I
OFW(I)-44-6821-512
For: Illegal
Dismissal/Money Claims and
Damages

POSITION PAPER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT

The COMPLAINANT through the undersigned Public Attorney of the

Public Attorney’s Office, unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully avers
that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Complainant in the above-mentioned case filed this complaint for

alleged illegal dismissal and alleged non-payment of salaries/wages. This
case was set for mediation but parties failed to come up with reasonable
Compromised Agreement, hence, the parties were directed to file their
respective Position Paper.

THE PARTIES

Complainant ROMMEL F. DELA CRUZ is of legal age, single,

Filipino citizen and a resident of P. Burgos St., Brgy. 1, San Fernando City,
La Union.

Respondent L.C. Manpower Expertise Corporation is a local

agency duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the
Philippines, with principal place of business at Unit 1081 Ramagi Building,
Pedro Gil St. cor. Singalong St., Paco, Manila, Philippines where summons
and other legal processes may be served.

______________________________________________
Position Paper of Rommel F. Dela Cruz
Page 1 of 7
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

On August 2017, Rommel F. Dela Cruz (Complainant) applied as an

Industrial Electrician in L.C. Manpower Expertise Corporation (LC
Manpower). On September 2017, Rommel was interviewed by a foreigner
regarding the position he was applying for.

When he passed the interview, he was informed that his work would
include installing fire alarm, CCTV and other labor tasks involving
electricity, in a hospital in Saudi Arabia. He was also informed about his
salary and other benefits as compensation to his duty amounting to 2000
Saudi Riyal as his basic salary and 300 Saudi Riyal for his food allowance.
He immediately prepared all the documents needed and he also had the
required medical examination.

On February 9, 2018, Rommel attended the Pre-Departure

Orientation Seminar as per directive of the agent of the manpower agency.
On the same day, an agent of LC Manpower had him signed a document
which served as the contract regarding his work as Industrial Technician in
Saudi Arabia. His salary and the term of the contract of employment were
also stated in the said document.

On April 8, 2018, before Rommel’s scheduled flight at 3:40PM, an

agent of LC Manpower met him at the airport as agreed upon by the
complainant and the agent and handed several documents:
1) Document containing his flight details;
2) Overseas Employment Certificate;
3) PhilHealth receipt under his name;
4) Pag-ibig receipt under his name;
5) Contract of employment;
6) PDOS Certificate of Attendance

The contract was handed down to the complainant for him to verify
and sign however, before signing the contract of employment, Complainant
questioned the stipulated salary because it is contrary to their prior
agreement for his basic salary which stated that his monthly salary would
only be 1,800 Saudi Riyal instead of 2,000 Saudi Riyal and 300 Saudi Riyal
as allowance which was the original agreement agreed upon by the parties.
The agent told Rommel that the said contract would only serve as a “Visa
Reader” for him to pass through the immigration. The complainant then
signed the contract.

Upon arriving in Saudi Arabia, Rommel was brought to a factory of

heavy equipment instead of a hospital to which he believes to be as his
workplace, which was agreed upon. He was then informed by his employer
ALHAMZAINI CONSULTANCY & CONSTRUCTION CO. (Employer) that
his job would be a Heavy Equipment Electrician contrary to his supposed
______________________________________________
Position Paper of Rommel F. Dela Cruz
Page 2 of 7
work to which he signed for employment. The complainant was transferred
to a clinic named AL SAFA MEDICAL CLINIC where he worked not as
industrial technician but as all around service and maintenance crew of the
said clinic. He was forced to do all the duties required by his new employer
however he was not duly compensated for his services.

With all the hardship that the complainant had suffered, he became
depressed due to lack of sleep and stress, which greatly affected his
performance in the workplace. The employer then was forced to terminate
the complainant on the due course of inefficiency. The complainant was
terminated however, his employer would only return all his documents if he
will sign the resignation letter and the disclaimer which was previously
prepared by the employer, the complainant signed the resignation letter
and disclaimer for the sole purpose of ending his suffering and for him to be
able to go back to his motherland.

The complainant arrived in the Philippines on May 08, 2018 and

immediately filed a complaint before the National Labor Relations
Commission with the prayer of relief and compensation for all the unpaid
salary and allowances relative to his employment abroad.

ISSUE

WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT IS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.

DISCUSSION

Indeed, employers have the prerogative to impose productivity and quality

standards at work. They may also impose reasonable rules to ensure that
the employees comply with these standards. Failure to comply may be a
just cause for their dismissal.

Certainly, employers cannot be compelled to retain the services of an

employee who is guilty of acts that are inimical to the interest of the
employer. While the law acknowledges the plight and vulnerability of
workers, it does not "authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the
employer." Management prerogative is recognized in law and in our
jurisprudence.

This prerogative, however, should not be abused. It is "tempered with the

employee’s right to security of tenure." Workers are entitled to substantive
and procedural due process before termination. They may not be removed
from employment without a valid or just cause as determined by law and
without going through the proper procedure.
Initially, security of tenure for labor is guaranteed by our Constitution.
Employees are not stripped of their security of tenure when they move to
______________________________________________
Position Paper of Rommel F. Dela Cruz
Page 3 of 7
work in a different jurisdiction. With respect to the rights of overseas Filipino
workers, we follow the principle of lex loci contractus. Thus, in Triple Eight
Integrated Services, Inc. v. NLRC, the court noted:
“Petitioner likewise attempts to sidestep the medical certificate requirement
by contending that since Osdana was working in Saudi Arabia, her
employment was subject to the laws of the host country. Apparently,
petitioner hopes to make it appear that the labor laws of Saudi Arabia do
not require any certification by a competent public health authority in the
dismissal of employees due to illness.
Again, petitioner’s argument is without merit.
XXXXXXXXXX.
The Court does not agree. The provisions of the Constitution as well as the
Labor Code which afford protection to labor apply to Filipino employees
whether working within the Philippines or abroad. Moreover, the principle of
lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract is made)
governs in this jurisdiction. In the present case, it is not disputed that the
Contract of Employment entered into by and between petitioners and
private respondent was executed here in the Philippines with the approval
of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). Hence, the
Labor Code together with its implementing rules and regulations and other
laws affecting labor apply in this case. (Emphasis supplied, citations
omitted)
By our laws, overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) may only be terminated for
a just or authorized cause and after compliance with procedural due
process requirements.”
It is clear in this case that respondent violates the two-notice rule
prior to the termination of complainant from employment. Additionally, he
was denied of the due process when respondent did not inform
complainant of his violations and no chance of explaining complainant’s
side.

“Petitioner’s allegation that respondent was inefficient in her work and

negligent in her duties may, therefore, constitute a just cause for
termination under Article 282(b), but only if petitioner was able to prove it.

The burden of proving that there is just cause for termination is on the
employer. "The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate
evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause." Failure to show that
there was valid or just cause for termination would necessarily mean that
the dismissal was illegal. [Emphasis supplied]

To show that dismissal resulting from inefficiency in work is valid, it must be

shown that: 1) the employer has set standards of conduct and
workmanship against which the employee will be judged; 2) the standards
of conduct and workmanship must have been communicated to the
employee; and 3) the communication was made at a reasonable time prior
to the employee’s performance assessment.”

______________________________________________
Position Paper of Rommel F. Dela Cruz
Page 4 of 7
In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or
authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the worker shall be entitled
to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at twelve
percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired
term, whichever is less. (Emphases supplied.)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
It is a settled rule of evidence that the one who pleads payment has the
burden of proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege nonpayment, the
general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment,
rather than on the plaintiff to prove nonpayment.”
xxxxxxxxx

Lastly, the resignation letter and disclaimer waiver which Rommel

was signed, does not barred him from filing this instant case or from
claiming damages from the respondent.
In the case of “Rutcher T. Dagasdas, v.
Grand Placement and General Services Corporation, G.R. No. 205727,
January 18, 2017”, the Supreme Court held:
“Lastly, while it is shown that Dagasdas executed a waiver in favor of his
employer, the same does not preclude him from filing this suit.
Generally, the employee's waiver or quitclaim cannot prevent the employee
from demanding benefits to which he or she is entitled, and from filing an
illegal dismissal case. This is because waiver or quitclaim is looked upon
with disfavor, and is frowned upon for being contrary to public policy.
Unless it can be established that the person executing the waiver
voluntarily did so, with full understanding of its contents, and with
reasonable and credible consideration, the same is not a valid and binding
undertaking. Moreover, the burden to prove that the waiver or quitclaim
was voluntarily executed is with the employer.
In this case, however, neither did GPGS nor its principal, ITM, successfully
discharged its burden. GPGS and/or ITM failed to show that Dagasdas
indeed voluntarily waived his claims against the employer.
Indeed, even if Dagasdas signed a quitclaim, it does not necessarily follow
that he freely and voluntarily agreed to waive all his claims against his
employer. Besides, there was no reasonable consideration stipulated in
said quitclaim considering that it only determined the actual payment due to
Dagasdas from February 11, 2008 to April 30, 2008. Verily, this quitclaim,
under the semblance of a final settlement, cannot absolve GPGS nor ITM
from liability arising from the employment contract of Dagasdas.
All told, the dismissal of Dagasdas was without any valid cause and due
process of law. Hence, the NLRC properly ruled that Dagasdas was
illegally dismissed. Evidently, it was an error on the part of the CA to hold
that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction when the NLRC ruled for Dagasdas.”
It shall be noted that the time Rommel signed the resignation letter
and disclaimer waiver, he was under undue influence, force and
______________________________________________
Position Paper of Rommel F. Dela Cruz
Page 5 of 7
intimidation. His eagerness to go back to the Philippines because of what
was transpired was the only thing and reason in his mind. He wanted to
escape from emotional and physical pain and torture.
We are not unaware of the many abuses suffered by our overseas workers
in the foreign land where they have ventured, usually with heavy hearts, in
pursuit of a more fulfilling future. Breach of contract, maltreatment, rape,
insufficient nourishment, sub-human lodgings, insults and other forms of
debasement, are only a few of the inhumane acts to which they are
subjected by their foreign employers, who probably feel they can do as they
please in their own country.
While these workers may indeed have relatively little defense against
exploitation while they are abroad, that disadvantage must not continue to
burden them when they return to their own territory to voice their muted
complaint. There is no reason why, in their very own land, the protection of
our own laws cannot be extended to them in full measure for the redress of
their grievances.

CONCLUSION

The aforesaid facts material to the complaint clearly manifest the

violation of the right of the complainant who entered into a contract in good
faith. However the manpower agency and the employer of the complainant
intently and willfully violated the rights of the employee and that the
undertakings of the employee relative to his resignation are due to violence
and undue influence.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed and

sought for of this Honorable Office to render judgment in favor of
complainant finding Rommel F. Dela Cruz’s dismissal is illegal. It is prayed
that complainant be awarded unpaid salaries, attorney’s fees as well as
moral and exemplary damages.

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this June 24, 2018 at San Fernando

City, La Union for Quezon City, Philippines.

______________________________________________
Position Paper of Rommel F. Dela Cruz
Page 6 of 7
 VERIFICATION

I, Rommel F. Dela Cruz, of legal age, after first being duly sworn to in
accordance with law depose and say that:

That I am the complainant in the above entitled Complaint. That I

have caused the preparation of the foregoing position paper. The
contents thereof have been read and translated to me in the
dialect known and understood by me. The same are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and based on
authentic documents.

In WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this

26th day of June 2018 in San Fernando City, La Union.

ROMMEL F. DELA CRUZ

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 26th day of June

2018 at San Fernando City, La Union, affiant exhibiting to me his personal
identification documents written below their signature.

BRYAN KYLLE S. LO
Doc No. 69 Notary Public – Serial No. 69-017
Page No. 69 Commission expires on 12/31/2022
Book No. 69 Roll No. 240818 – October 23, 2014
Series of 2018 IBP Lifetime No. 696969 – 1/3/2019
PTR No. 696969 – 9/8/2018
MCLE Compliance No. V-69696969

______________________________________________
Position Paper of Rommel F. Dela Cruz
Page 7 of 7