REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
REGIONAL ARBITRATION BRANCH 111
City of San Fernando, Pampanga

LAURA A. SAMPOL
Complainant,

NLRC CASE NO. RAB-III-

05-27515-18
-versus-

ZAMBANAS PINAS/HHIC PHILS.

MR. ANH DONG KOO,
ZAMBANAS PINAS PRES. &
MR. CHUNG WANG SUK,
HHIC PRES.
KIM KYUNG MOON, HHIC Representative
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------- - x

POSITION PAPER

Complainant Laura A.Sampol, by counsel and unto this

Honorable Office most respectfully submits this Position Paper, thus:

PARTIES

Complainant, LAURA A. SAMPOL, (COMPLAINANT SAMPOL

for brevity) is a Filipino citizen, single, of legal age, with residence
address at Blk 9, Lot 1, Nagbayto, Nagbunga, Castillejos, Zambales
where he may be served with summons and other processes of this
Honorable Office through the undersigned counsel at No. 4, National
Highway Barrio Barretto, Olongapo City .

Respondent ZAMBANAS PINAS CORPORATION /HHIC PHILS.,

are corporations existing under the laws with principal office address
at Greenbeach 1, Redondo Peninsula, Brgy. Cawag, Castillejos,
Zambales, and the respondents MR. KIM KYONG MOON, HR
Representative and MR. CHUNG GWANG SUK, HHIC President, AND
Ahn Dong Koo President respectively of said corporations at the
same address where they may be served with processes of this
Honorable Office.

NATURE OF THE CASE

The crux of this case is the Illegal Dismissal of the complainant

together with a prayer for reinstatement with full backwages and
other money claims.

STATEMENT OF FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

The crux of this case is the Illegal Dismissal of the complainant

together with a prayer for reinstatement with full back wages. She also
claims for damages moral and exemplary and attorney’s fees.

Complainant was hired as an engineering staff. She was initially

employed on April 9, 2008. She receives a salary rate of Ph 14,000.00 per
day. On April 12, complainant was given a memo asking her to explain
why she should not be disciplined. She submitted her explanation letter to
the respondent on April 25, 2018. Luck did favor the complainant when
management did not heed her explanation and terminated her.

In her termination letter, respondent states that complainant

committed violation of Company Rules and Reglation when during
breaktime, complainant was seen discussing the Memorandum of
Agreement. Among the violations allegedly committed, respondent claims
that complainant committed to wit:

1.) Unauthorized Personal Activities

2.) Act of misrepresentation
3.) Unauthorized use of company premises.

On May 2, 2018, respondent company terminated the complainant.

Aggrieved, she filed the instant complaint.
 ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT

WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED

WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT

IS ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT WITH
FULL BACKWAGES.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT

IS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF MORAL
AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND
ATTORNEY’S FEES

ARGUMENTS/ DISCUSSION

IN RE: FIRST ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY

DISMISSED

The Labor Code provides that a regular employee cannot be

terminated from work except for a just or authorized cause. The
termination of an employee must be effected by in accordance with
the law. Hence, aside from the existence of a just or authorized
cause or causes, the employer must furnish the employee sought to
be dismissed with two (2) written notices. The first notice apprises
the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which the
intended dismissal is grounded. On the other hand, the second notice
is necessary to inform the employee of the employer’s decision to
dismiss him.

In the instant case, complainant only received her termination

letter from respondent company. There was no due process in her
termination. After being asked to explain her alleged violation, she
was terminated. Among the violations allegedly committed, respondent
claims that complainant committed to wit:

1.) Unauthorized Personal Activities

2.) Act of misrepresentation
3.) Unauthorized use of company premises.
It is worthy to discuss the alleged violation of the complainant
because the actions being pertained to where all done when
complainant was on noon break. The company had no right to
interfere with complainants lunch break. The Labor Code provides as
follows”

Section 7. Meal and Rest Periods. —

Every employer shall give his employees,
regardless of sex, not less than one (1)
hour time-off for regular meals, except
in the following cases when a meal
period of not less than twenty (20)
minutes may be given by the employer
provided that such shorter meal period
is credited as compensable hours
worked of the employee:

(a) Where the work is non-manual

work in nature or does not involve
strenuous physical exertion;

(b) Where the establishment regularly

operates not less than sixteen (16)
hours a day;

(c) In case of actual or impending

emergencies or there is urgent work to
be performed on machineries,
equipment or installations to avoid
serious loss which the employer would
otherwise suffer; and

(d) Where the work is necessary to

prevent serious loss of perishable goods.

In the above cited provision, nothing in the law states that the
management can control what the worker will do under her noon
break. In the instant case, respondent management terminated the
complainant because she was doing personal (union) activities
claiming the said activities are unauthorized. During that time,
complainant was explaining to her co-worker the essence of the
Memorandum of Agreement entered by the Management and the
Union presidents.

Under the law, one’s employment is a property and deprivation

of such without the observance of due process is contrary to law. The
existence of a reason to terminate an employee alone does not
conform with the requirements of the law as existence of a ground is
just one of the facets of a valid dismissal.

After taking into consideration of the above stated

circumstances, it is submitted that complainant was illegally
dismissed by respondent company as she was terminated from work
without any just or authorized cause. Such act by respondent
company is a clear indication of oppression of labor and obtrusive
manifestation of its bad faith and intention to disregard the rights of
the complainant to security of tenure.

IN RE: SECOND ISSUE

RESPONDENT COMPANY IS LIABLE
FOR ALL THE MONETARY CLAIMS OF COMPLAINANT

COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO FULL BACK WAGES

& PAYMENT OF SEPARATION PAY

The Supreme Court has emphasized over and over that an

employee who has been dismissed without a just cause is one that
has been illegally dismissed. In the instant case, it is apparent that
complainant was terminated without any cause and was only given a
notice after the filing of the instant case.

The normal consequence of complainant’s illegal dismissal is

reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and payment of
backwages or separation pay when reinstatement is no longer
feasible because of the strained relations between the employee and
the employer. Further, the payment of separation pay is not
inconsistent with payment of back wages. The grant of one will not
preclude the grant of the other. Payment of backwages is a form of
relief that restores the income that was lost by reason of unlawful
dismissal, separation pay, in contrast, is oriented towards the
immediate future, the transitional period the dismissed employee
must undergo before locating a replacement job.

Herein, complainant was illegally terminated and as such he is

entitled to separation pay and full back wages.

RESPONDENT COMPANY IS LIABLE TO

PAY THE COMPLAINANT HOLIDAY PAY
AND THE MONETIZED VALUE OF THEIR
UNUSED SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE.
 The Labor Code is clear on the matter of Holiday Pay
stating thereof –

“Article 94. RIGHT TO HOLIDAY PAY

– (a) Every worker shall be paid his daily
regular daily wage during regular holidays,
except in retail and service establishments
regularly employing less than (10) workers.
xxx”

Clearly, the respondent company have in its employ more than

(10) workers. As such, the complainant should have been entitled to
Holiday Pay. Regrettably, during the several years of employment
with the Respondents, the same was not paid to him;

On the matter of entitlement to Service Incentive Leave the same

Code states –

“Article 95. RIGHT TO SERVICE

INCENTIVE LEAVE. – (a) Every employee
who has rendered at least one (1) year of
service shall be entitled to a yearly service
incentive leave of five (5) days with pay. xxx”

Moreover, unused Service Incentive leave at the end of the year

should be converted to cash, according to the Implementing Rules.

Considering that the complainant has been employed with the

respondent company for more than a year and that he was not
afforded service incentive leave in the previous years that he
rendered his service with the Respondents, he should be entitled to
the monetized value of these unused service incentive leave.

IN RE: THIRD ISSUE

RESPONDENT COMPANY IS LIABLE TO

PAY THE COMPLAINANT MORAL AND
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND
ATTORNEY’S FEES BY WAY OF
DAMAGES.

Complainant is likewise entitled to moral and exemplary damages because of the

aforementioned deliberate acts of respondent company, as employers, were
evidently oppressive, abusive, anti-social and done in bad faith. The anti-social
and oppressive abuse by respondent company in its dealings with the
complainant, specifically the willful and conscious acts in terminating the latter
without affording them both substantial and procedural due process as
mandated under the constitution and the existing laws, constitute a violation of
article 1701 of the new civil code, which prohibits acts of oppression by either
capital or labor against the other, and article 21 on human relations. The grant
of moral damages to the employees by reason of such conduct on the part of the
company is sanctioned by article 2219, no. 10 of the civil code, which allows
recovery of such damages in acts and actions referred in article 21;

Similarly, respondent company is liable to pay to the complainant reasonable

amount of attorney’s fees.

Prayer

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED that the complainant where as he

should be reinstated to their former position with full back wages;

ii. that the complainant is entitled to their money claims,

namely:

prevailing daily minimum wage for employees within ncr and

separation pay, payment of overtime pay and 13th month pay.

iii. ordering the respondents to pay:

(a) attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the monetary award

and other legal expenses incurred in the prosecution of
this case to be determined thru the sound discretion of
this honorable office;
(b) moral damages of not less than p50,000.00 each of the
complainants;
(c) exemplary damages of not less than p50,000.00 each of
the complainants; other reliefs just and equitable under
the circumstances also prayed for.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted. Quezon City, 27 February 2019

Quezon City for the city of san fernando, pampanga,

ROSALINDA A. MONTENEGRO
COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT
 AMAPO, TUCP OFFICE
NO. 4 NATIONAL HIGHWAY, BO. BARRETTO,
OLONGAPO CITY, ZAMBALES
ROLL OF ATTORNEY'S NO. 68465
PTR NO. 5609932; ISSUED: 1/18/19; QUEZON CITY
IBP OR NO. AR 001824 / 1/19/9QUEZON CITY
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. VI-0005347

copy furnished:

1. ZAMBANAS PINAS CORP. /HHIC PHILS.,MR. KIM KYONG MOON,.

PRES.& MR. CHUNG GWANG SUK, HHIC PRES.,/ AHN DONG
KOO ZAMBANAS PINAS CORP-PRESIDENT
Green beach II Rendondo Peninsula,
Brgy. Cawag, Subic Bay Freeport Zone
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
Olongapo CITY ) s.s.

VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION
OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, LAURA A. SAMPOL a Filipino, of legal age, and with

residence and postal address at Blk 9, Lot 1, nagbayo, Nagbunga,
Castillejos, Zambales, after having been duly sworn to in accordance
with law, hereby depose and say:

1. That I am the complainant in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing position

paper;

3. That I have read and understood the contents thereof and

that the allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal
knowledge and based on authentic records;

4. That I have not commenced any action or proceeding before

any court, tribunal or any other agency involving the same parties
and cause of action, and that to the best of my knowledge, no such
action is pending therein, and should I learn that any such action or
proceeding is pending therein, I undertake to inform the fact within
five (5) days from knowledge thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

3 RD
day of July 2018 at Olongapo City, Philippines.

_____________________
LAURA A. SAMPOL

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this ____ day of

June 2018 at __________________, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to
me her _____________________________________________
issued at Olongapo City

Notary Public
Doc. No.
Book No.
Page No.
Series 2018