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 6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

On August 2017, Rommel F. Dela Cruz (Rommel) 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 told that he would
receive a monthly salary of 2,000 Saudi Riyal and monthly food allowance
of 300 Saudi Riyal. 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. 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 duration 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 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

Before signing the contract of employment, Rommel questioned the

stipulated salary because it was stated that his monthly salary would only
be 1,800 Saudi Riyal instead of 2,300 Saudi Riyal which was the original
salary 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. He subsequently then signed the contract.

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

heavy equipment and not to a hospital, which was the original place of the
employment which was agreed upon. He was then informed by his
employer ALHAMZAINI CONSULTANCY & CONSTRUCTION CO.
(Alhamzaini) that his job would be a Heavy Equipment Electrician. He
complained of the said job because that was not the supposed job that he
signed in the contract of employment and that he has no knowledge on the
said job.

______________________________________________
Position Paper of Rommel F. Dela Cruz
Page 2 of 6
 Rommel was transferred to a clinic named AL SAFA MEDICAL
CLINIC where he worked as a porter of cabinet and granite tiles. He also
had to work during his day-off. He had no choice but to follow the orders of
his employer because he had no one to run to and the Philippine Embassy
was located far from his place.

With all the unfortunate events that had transpired to Rommel, he

then suffered depression and his blood pressure increased because of the
sleepless nights he had. When the Medical Director learned of Rommel’s
depression and that Rommel can no longer work effectively, the Medical
Director told Rommel that his documents would be returned to him.
However, a resignation letter and a disclaimer waiver were given to him in
exchange of a plane ticket to the Philippines. Rommel signed the said
resignation letter and disclaimer waiver against his will because he
desperately wanted to go home to the Philippines.

Rommel arrived at the Philippines on May 8, 2018. He complained

that he did not receive any of his salary including the overtime hours of
work he rendered. He then filed a case for illegal dismissal against LC
Manpower.

ISSUE

The sole issue to be resolved in this case is WHETHER OR NOT

THE COMPLAINANT IS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.

DISCUSSION

COMPLAINANT ROMMEL F. DELA CRUZ IS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED

In a plethora of cases decided by the Supreme Court, constructive

dismissal is defined as a cessation of work because continued employment
is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion
in rank or diminution in pay or both; or when a clear discrimination,
insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the
employee. The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable
person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his
position under the circumstances. It is an act amounting to dismissal but
made to appear as if it were not. Constructive dismissal is, therefore, a
dismissal in disguise. As such, the law recognizes and resolves this
situation in favor of employees in order to protect their rights and interests
from the coercive acts of the employer.

Constructive dismissal is illegal and usually occurs when an

employee resigns as a result of unfavorable work conditions instigated by
the employer. It is typically resorted to by employers who do not want to
______________________________________________
Position Paper of Rommel F. Dela Cruz
Page 3 of 6
undergo the procedural due process involved in legally terminating an
employee.

In the present case, Rommel was forced to sign the resignation letter
against his will because he desperately wanted to return home to the
Philippines because of the unfavorable work conditions he experienced in
Saudi Arabia. The signing of the resignation letter then amounted to
involuntary resignation on the part of Rommel. In Mora v. Avesco, the Court
ruled that should the employer interpose the defense of resignation, it is still
incumbent upon the employer to prove that the employee voluntarily
resigned. Constructive dismissal includes situations where the employee
submitted a courtesy resignation letter because it was demanded of him
even when he did not wish to leave his post. These situations are akin to
that in ICT Marketing Services, Inc. vs. Sales where the Supreme Court
ruled that:
“Petitioner immediately filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Resignation, it has been held, is inconsistent with the filing of a
complaint. Thus, private respondent corporation’s mere assertion that
petitioner voluntarily resigned without offering convincing evidence to
prove it, is not sufficient to discharge the burden of proving such an
assertion. It is worthy to note that the fact of filing a resignation letter
alone does not shift the burden of proof and it is still incumbent upon
the employer to prove that the employee voluntarily resigned.”

It is clear that Rommel involuntarily signed the resignation letter in

exchange of the plane ticket to the Philippines. Rommel really wanted to go
home to the Philippines because of his bad experiences in Saudi Arabia, to
wit:
First, he worked as a Heavy Equipment Electrician in a factory
instead of an Industrial Electrician in a hospital, which was the job he
applied to and what was stated in the contract of employment he signed in
the Philippines.
Second, Rommel was transferred to a clinic where he worked as a
porter of cabinet and granite tiles. He also reported for work even during his
day-off.
Third, Rommel suffered health issues including depression and
increased blood pressure due to sleepless nights.

Rommel felt oppressed by these situations created by the private

respondent agency, and this forced him to surrender his position by signing
the resignation letter.

There is no abandonment of employment nor a resignation in the real

sense, but instead constructive dismissal, defined as an involuntary
resignation was resorted to by Rommel.

In the case of Grande vs PNTC just decided by the Supreme Court on

March 1, 2017, the highest court of the land enunciated once again the need
______________________________________________
Position Paper of Rommel F. Dela Cruz
Page 4 of 6
to respect the employees’ right to security of tenure. The Supreme Court held
that the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal would be the best
evidence that contradicts what employers allege as voluntary resignation.
When constructive dismissal or illegal dismissal is found by the labor tribunals
and the higher courts, the remedies are reinstatement, full backwages, and in
proper cases, moral and exemplary damages, plus attorneys’ fees. In the
present case, the act of Rommel of filing a complaint in the NLRC was
indicative of lack of voluntariness in his so-called resignation.

CONCLUSION

In summary, considering the above arguments, complainant Rommel

F. Dela Cruz is illegally dismissed. Rommel did not voluntarily resign;
rather, he was constructively dismissed. It was the employer who
presented a prepared resignation letter for Rommel to sign. He
involuntarily resigned because the work conditions Rommel experienced in
Saudi Arabia were already unbearable. As a result of Rommel’s illegal
dismissal and since reinstatement is no longer viable, he is entitled to the
payment of salary for the 1 month of service he rendered as well as
payment for damages and attorney’s fees.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed 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 26, 2018 at San Fernando

City, La Union for Quezon City, Philippines.

______________________________________________
Position Paper of Rommel F. Dela Cruz
Page 5 of 6
 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.

GILLIAN JOY C. SIOBAL

Doc. No. 01 Notary Public – Serial No. 24-017
Page No. 02 Commission expires on 12/31/2018
Book No. 10 Roll No. 232608 – March 26, 2014
Series of 2018 IBP Lifetime No. 080818 – 2/3/2015
PTR No. 924170 – 1/6/2018
MCLE Compliance No. V-1023951

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