Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Regional Arbitration Branch
Quezon City

JESSAMYN L. CARAANG
Complainant,

- versus - NLRC NCR CASE

NO. NCR -04-06569-19
Arbiter Pablo A. Gajardo Jr.

TRT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PHILS. INC.,

DOMENIC ROMANELLI, ROBERT PIVAC,
VENUS CASINO AND RYAN LINTAG.

Respondents.

x--------------------x

REPLY TO
POSITION PAPER
(of Respondents)
Complainant by counsel, to the Honorable Labor Arbiter of this

Commission, most respectfully allege that:

IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE UNLAWFUL DISMISSAL OF

COMPLAINANT, RESPONDENTS RESORTED TO AN EXCAVATION OF

ALLEGED OFFENSES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN SERVED AND MOST

UNTRUE.

As early as Filipro v. Minister Blas Ople, et al (G. R. No. 72129 February

7, 1990) the Supreme Court ruled that past infractions cannot be used to

justify the dismissal of complainant. Collectively, these past infractions

cannot be used as a justification for complainant’s dismissal from service. To

do so would put complainant to penalty twice for the same offense.

 Respondents alleged that complainant committed several infractions

however unjustified.

1. Respondents alleged that complainant was issued a First Written

Warning on May 21, 2018 for not having a mobile load that restricted

complainant to make phone calls. Respondent claims to have sent to

complainant a written warning and notice for an administrative hearing.

Complainant admitted to receiving a written warning however no

administrative hearing was conducted. Also, complainant who was

only a VCA at that time was on a weekend (Saturday) shift on May 19,

2018 from 8AM to 8PM. When she just reached home at 10PM, she

monitored at home thus was able to know about the case. She then

reported to Venus Casino who was managing the VCA team that time

and advised that she can go back to the office and address the case

properly but Venus said “It is already 12 midnight in Australia, you can

go to the office early in the morning tomorrow”. Complainant was

worried as GSD TSM Robert Pivac and Rocco Scaturchio were

messaging her and sending emails. Complainant reports everything to

Venus Casino while she walks her way back to the office but Venus

said, she will do the call and complainant will just go to work early the

next day. Complainant was able to resolve the next day upon open of

business hour in Australia. It should be noted that it was 10PM in the

Philippines when complainant was informed and she just got home

after a 12-hour shift in the office and she is made to buy from

Australian vendor at 12 in the midnight, out of business hours in the

said country. Also, complainant was willing to go back to the office and

was asked by her manager Venus Casino to stay home as she is

going for another 12-hour shift the next day but was still issued a

Written warning for a petty reason- not having a mobile load despite

expressing her willingness to go beyond what is being asked. Also, it is

 noted on complainant’s answer to the written warning that “I was more

than willing to go back to work that time so I could deal with the order

properly as it is true that I have no means of calling an overseas

number, not that I do not have a prepaid load but I was unaware of the

IDD promos that I can register just so I can make an overseas call.

This is my first time to have ever called an international number…”

The allegation that there was a huge loss is untrue as there was none.

The item has been purchased and the vendor and customer locations

are just within same region in Australia.

2. Respondent also pointed out that it was the complainant who

demanded to be promoted. Complainant has been performing well and

was offered the promotion by the CEO Domenic Romanelli to which

she accepted. Complainant would also like to express clearly that she

had been following up her regularization confirmation since August 26,

2018. Venus Casino assured that she will be regularized but has to

wait for the CEO who by that time was scheduled to visit the

Philippines. Her regularization was conferred on October 2, 2018 after

so much waiting and with no increase in salary to which she is entitled

as a regular employee since August 26, 2018. Her regularization was

effective on August 26, 2018 but was only confirmed to her through a

new contract on October 2, 2018 along with her promotion as VC-TL.

And although the contract was given on October 2, 2018, the effectivity

of her new position as VC-TL and her new salary as indicated, is on

November 1, 2018.

3. Respondent also alleged that a Second written warning was issued to

complainant on January 29, 2019 for failure to get written confirmation

from a prospective supplier of a reactive that there were no issues with

 credit before a purchase was made and failure to escalate the service

risk to the management.

4. Complainant sent a reply to the written warning and has pointed out

the following:

a. There was no second written warning issued to her and asked for

clarification what was it about.

b. Complainant, in her reply, attached two emails from two different

suppliers confirming they will be shipping the items and they are

also unaware of the credit hold until their shipping department

informed them. Also, since these are reactive orders, we are more

of phone conversation so the orders can be locked in and shipped

as soon as possible.

c. Complainant also attached a copy of her email to Accounts and

Accounts team lead informing them of the list of suppliers on credit

hold.

It is very evident that the difficulty in dealing with numerous

suppliers is due to the fact that TRT has many outstanding debts

and suppliers are not trusting TRT anymore and TRT is popular in

vendor/broker sites as a delinquent payer.

Complainant was also asked to look for more suppliers as old

suppliers do not want to do business with TRT anymore due bad

reputation and broken trust. There were instances that when

complainant reported unpaid dues to accounts and Domenic

Romanelli, Romanelli will message her in Skype, call her and email

her threatening her that she will be removed or demoted.

d. As with the addendum to the written warning, it was furnished to

the complainant minutes after the hearing with Robert Pivac and

Ryan Lintag. During the hearing, complainant explained that there

 was no delay and the major cause of suppliers not shipping is due

to credit hold. Having explained her side, Ryan Lintag sent an

addendum and no further hearing happened to discuss the

contents of the addendum and to afford due process to

complainant. It has been a practice that when respondent issues

warnings, there is no administrative hearing.

e. As to the allegation in the addendum regarding “VCA sharing status

with GSD”, there is nothing wrong in saying the status of the

shipment and what caused the delay as it is the fact. Global

Service Desk (GSD) is an internal department and advising such

does not hurt the operations. While it seems unnecessary as it is

not their concern, it is better than to fabricate a story.

f. As to the allegation that a shipment has been in customs for (19)

days which was handled as low priority by the complainant in which

according to the respondent has jeopardized the office relocation is

false and respondent is just trying to magnify the issue. TRT

relocated even before the racks and rails were requested. Those

items are not very critical but were purchased as soon as they were

requested. The delay in customs is a standard delay as the cost of

the items are subject to customs inspections and assessment.

These were communicated to Robert Pivac everyday since the

items were shipped from the supplier. Also the 19 days Pivac is

claiming adds up the days when the first order was shipped and

items received were incorrect. The fault was not from the VCA

team but with the IT personnel who approved the pictures sent

before purchasing. There was no delay due to VCA fault. The

“delay” was because of the standard customs process in the

Philippines for formal entry shipments.

g. For the third written warning sent to complainant on March 13,

2019 with regards to a no DHL hub in HK, complainant sent a

written warning to one of the VCA team member to explain his side

but was unable to get a furnished reply anymore since she was

issued a “Suspension with Pay”. This incident has happened on

February 8, 2018 and has been explained to CEO Romanelli

through our meeting that VCA was the one who told GSD that there

was a hub in HK but GSD’s Exec report says otherwise.

Surprisingly, after more than a month, a warning was issued

regarding a matter which has been already discussed. This is not a

VCA fault as it was the GSD SL who furnished an incorrect report.

h. All other allegations and warnings sent to complainant citing for

huge loss were all false and fabricated. The claim that there was no

item available for a case is due to the reason that all purchases has

to be approved by Robert Pivac and Domenic Romanelli and

record attached shows that they have no approval for the item

needed to which they blame the complainant who has no approval

power vested on her.

i. The respondent still claims that complainant was not terminated

and was only suspended. Complainant, through her TRT

colleagues was able to get hold of a copy of an email from Robert

Pivac and Domenic Romanelli that “A VC TL has been

terminated…” and email implying “removal of Jessamyn..” and “will

be actioned by Marivel”. Marivel is the new VC-TL who assumed

office on March 11, 2019.

j. It is very clear that complainant has been terminated and that the

“Suspension with pay” was just a front. It is evident that even while

complainant is still the VC-TL, a hiring for a replacement has taken

place as it is very odd that a new VC-TL assume office on a

 Monday, March 11, 2019 while complainant was suspended on a

Friday, March 8, 2019.

k. Respondent’s claim that complainant incurred anauthorized

purchases are all untrue. All purchases are for approval and

monitored and due to the fact that TRT is mostly on credit hold with

most of the suppliers worldwide, VCA would not dare purchase

anything unapproved.

l. Respondent also mentioned that complainant asked for a

Certificate of employment and that a Return to work letter was sent

to complainant. It is very clear that complainant claims she was

terminated and therefore would not demand for a Certificate of

employment. The certificate of employment was given to

complainant during the conciliation period and complainant stood

firm to her decision not to go back to work due to strained

relationship. A back-to-work letter was also sent to her on May 6

whereas the expiration of her maternity leave is on June 26. It was

an action which clearly shows a desperate move from respondent

to justify their actions but was evidently untimely.

AS POINTED OUT BY COMPLAINANT, he did not violate any company

rule or policy that falls within any of the just causes for termination (Art. 282-

283 of the Labor Code). Dialing a fax number to increase the number of calls

does not even constitute grave misconduct, gross insubordination, gross

negligence, fraud or commission of a crime. In interpreting the

actions/inaction of complainant to fall within the ambit of the aforementioned

articles would be to stretch the meaning of the Labor Code provisions too far.

It is simply unreasonable and unconscionable. AT THE VERY LEAST,

RESPONDENTS HAVE DENIED COMPLAINANT SIMPLE SOCIAL

JUSTICE.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, it is most

respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered in favor of the complainant in

accordance with the prayer in the complaint:

Complainant further prays for such other reliefs or remedies which this

Honorable Labor Arbiter may deem just and equitable in the premises

Quezon City 27 September2018.

FERDINAND A. BACORRO
Counsel for Complainant
26 Aberdeen St., BF Parklane, BF Homes,
Paranaque City
PTR No. 0867196/ 01/03/17 / Parañaque City
IBP Lifetime No. 01657 / 12-07-99 / Camarines Norte
Roll No. 28910 MCLE Nos. I-0011795, II-0003268,
III-0021054 & IV-0024080
Tel.-09777381067; e-mail – fbacorro@gmail.com

Copy furnished:

ATTY. JUSTIN ADRIEL F. ORDOYO

Counsel for Reed Elsevier Shared Services, Inc.
DIVINA LAW
8/F Pacific Star Bldg. Sen. Gil Puyat Ave.
Cor. Makati Avenue, Makati City