Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Baguio City

Raul
Rodriquez________
Complainant;

- - - versus - - - NLRC CAR CASE NO.07-

1111-14
FX Appliance Center
Management
Respondent;

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

POSITION PAPER
Respondent, through undersigned counsel and unto
this Honorable Office, respectfully states that;

PREFATORY STATEMENT
As Justice Isagani Cruz strongly emphasized, social
justice or any justice for that matter is for the deserving,
whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his
hovel. It is a truism that in case of reasonable doubt, we are
to tilt the balance in favor of the poor to whom the
Constitution fittingly extends its sympathy and compassion.
However, it is never justified to give preference to the poor
simply because they are poor, or reject the rich simply
because they are rich, for justice must always be served for
the poor and rich alike, according to the mandate of the law.
Employers, implied by their capacity to compensate
their employees are considered rich. Therefore, they are
entitled to justice as much as the employees are.

THE PARTIES
1. Complainant Raul Rodriguez (Raul for brevity) is of legal
age, and a Filipino.

1
2. Respondent FX Appliance Center Management (STORE
MANAGEMENT for brevity) is a domestic business entity
with branches in Baguio City and Pampanga.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ANTECEDENTS

1. The complainant Raul has been employed as Assistant
Store Manager of the FX Appliance Center, Baguio City
Branch, earning Php 12,000.00 a month.
2. On August 8, 2014, the STORE MANAGEMENT, for sound
business reasons, decided to transfer Raul to the
Pampanga Branch as Store Manager.
3. Raul was directed to start reporting at the Pampanga
Branch starting August 15, 2014.
4. On August 9 to 20, 2014, Raul did not report to work.
5. On August 20, 2014, Raul informed the STORE
MANAGEMENT that he refused to go and never reported
at the Pampanga Branch because it would take him
away from his family.
6. Consequently, the STORE MANAGEMENT fired Raul right
then and there on August 20, 2014 due to his non-
appearance for work on August 9 – 20, 2014.
7. The dismissal was grounded on abandonment of work
and insubordination.
8. Subsequently, Raul filed a complaint for Illegal
Termination, damages, and attorneys’ fees before the
Labor Arbiter. Hence, this Position Paper.

ISSUES
1. Was the complainant’s termination from
employment based on just cause or valid
grounds?
2. Is Raul entitled to damages?
3. Should the respondent be liable for attorneys’
fees?

DISCUSSION/ARGUMENTS
1. The dismissal by the STORE MANAGEMENT is
based on valid grounds.
Raul abandoned his work at the Baguio City Branch
from August 9 to 15. Moreover, he did not report at
the Pampanga Branch where he was supposed to

2
 report at, starting August 15, 2014. Raul’s non-
appearance for work on August 9 to 20 for the reason
that he will be taken away from his family cannot
absolve his faults. He was directed to start reporting
at the Pampanga Branch on August 15, six days
before his non-appearance for work at the Branch he
was assigned to prior to his reassignment.
Furthermore, he could have informed the STORE
MANAGEMENT of his decision at an earlier date
considering that the STORE MANAGEMENT informed
him of the transfer on August 8, seven days before
he was directed to report at the Pampanga Branch.
Thus, his acts clearly constitute wilful disobedience
and abandonment of work.
According to Article 282 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines, an employer may terminate an
employment for wilful disobedience by the employee
of the lawful orders of his employer or representative
in connection with his work and any other causes
analogous.

2. In light of the just causes, Raul’s dismissal cannot be

invalidated. Thus, Raul is not entitled to moral and
exemplary damages. (Canadian Opportunities
Unlimited, Inc. v. Dalangin Jr., G.R. No. 172223, Feb. 6,
2012)
The STORE MANAGEMENT is only entitled to pay Raul
the nominal damages for non-compliance of the
statutory process of legal dismissal. This is in the sum
of not more than 30,000 pesos. (Agabon vs. NLRC, 442
SCRA 573).

3. Since the termination of the employment was based on

just causes, Raul cannot claim for attorney’s fees. The
respondent is not entitled to pay the attorney’s
fees. (Canadian Opportunities Unlimited, Inc. v.
Dalangin Jr., G.R. No. 172223, Feb. 6, 2012)

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most
respectfully prayed of this Honorable Labor Arbiter, that
decision be rendered, to wit:
1. Declaring the termination of the Complainant as
legal.
2. Denying the Complainant’s claim for damages.
3
 3. Denying the Complainant’s claim for attorney’s
fees.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises
are also prayed for.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Baguio City, October 1, 2014.
By:
Atty. Aracelli Epie Pudin
Roll of Attorneys No. 071111