REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILTARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICES
3RD Floor, OMBUDSMAN BLDG., AGHAM ROAD, DILIMAN, QUEZON CITY, PHILIPPINES

PO2 JAMES ARIEL FUENTES.. OMB-P-A-07-0425-E

Complainant,
-versus- For: Grave Misconduct

2LT., EDGARDO BATINAI, ET AL OMB-P-C-07-0438-E

Respondents.
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- / For: ART. 266, SLIGHT PHYSICAL
INJURIES, ART 148, R.P.C. DIRECT
ASSAULT.

COMPLAINANT’S POSITION PAPER

COMES now respondents, through the undersigned counsel, most

respectfully submits their position paper and avers, thus:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

One’s employment or profession is a ‘property right’ and the wrongful

interference therewith is an actionable wrong. The right is considered to be
property within the protection of the constitutional guarantee of due process
of law [Texon vs. Millena, G.R. No. 141380. April 14, 2004].

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a case for illegal dismissal, 13 th Month Pay,Service Incentive

Leave, Separation Pay, filed by the complainants against the respondents.

THE PARTIES

Complainant Nestor Ybañez, Jr. is a former employee of respondent

EXPLORER FREIGHT CORP., where he worked as a driver.

Respondent EXPLORER FREIGHT is a corporation duly organized and

existing under the law of the republic of the Philippines. Respondent GUIDO
CUERDA is the General Manager of respondent Explorer freight while
Respondent Jomar Timog is the Team Leader of respondent Explorer
Freight’s Cebu Office.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Respondent EXPLORER FREIGHT CORP. [hereinafter called

EXPLORER for brevity] is a corporation duly organized and existing under
the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. Respondent EXPLORER is
engaged in the cargo forwarding business where complainant formerly is
employed as a driver.

Letter dated May 23, 2007.

To: MR. GUIDO S. CUERDA

Cc: MR. HARODL L. CUERDA

Cc: MS. JEAN L. CUERDA

Subject: Incident report of Nestor Ybane Ybanez

It was Saturday morning, May 5, 2007 during office hours, when

Rena Lirasan reported to me about what happened about Nestor
Ybañez on May 04, 2007 Friday afternoon.

Rena Lirasan instructed Nestor Ybañez to drive her to SM, while

she was about to close the office and preparing to go home that
afternoon, she noticed that Nestor Ybañez in the warehouse
alone was very busy, rightaway, she confronted him of what he
was doing, and he replied, he was checking the extra tire and
tools, then he trove the multicab out of the warehouse and
waited for Rena, when Rena was finally out of the office she
checked the back of multicab and found out that there was (1)
roll of Aluminum cable on multicab and Rena asked Nestor why
he was carrying the said cables inside the multicab? He
answered “dati nay an jan”, ano ren ibaba ba natin to?, rena
rightway instructed Nestor to return the said cables inside the
warehouse.

My conclusion was, what Nestor Ybañez did was very intentional

because early that afternoon I (Jomar Timog) was the one who
parked the multicab inside thewarehouse and it was empty, and
2 weeks before this incident happen Mr. Jimmy LAxamana of
ARS claimed that three (3) rolls of I.F. Power Cable tored in our
warehouse wa lost.

2
 Whatever your decision regarding this matter will be dealt
accordingly.

Respectfully yours,

SGD. JOMAR C. TIMOG. II

Team Leader - Operation

DEMAND FOR EXPLANATION

TO : Mr. Nestor Ybañez

FROM: EFC Management

SUBJECT : EXPLANATION LETTER

Please explain within three days from receipt of this letter why you will
not be subjected to an appropriate disciplinary action, such as
termination for the act of stealing one roll of cable wire worth Php
20.000.00.

Background: On May 4, 200, late afternoon Friday morning, you were

assigned by Rina Lirasan to drive the multicab which was parked
inside the warehouse. While the multicab was still inside the
warehouse, Rina have seen you loading items inside the multi cab.
When you parked the multicab outside the warehouse infront of the
gate, Rina Lirasan noticed one roll of cable wire loaded inside the
multicab. You were instructed by Rina to bring the one roll of cable wire
back to the warehouse.

Investigation were made and Allan Suson and Jomar Timog attested
that the multicab was empty when parked inside the warehouse.

For the month of April, we lost Three (3) rolls of cable wire.A certain
employee have reported that one instance you instructed him to load
the cable wire inside the delivery vehicle which was parked inside the
warehouse.

Failure to submit written letter of explanation shall mean an admission

of offense stated above and that you are foregoing with your right to
due process.

For your guidance.

Prepared by: Approved by:

(Sgd.) Maria Fatima Elegenio (Sgd.) Harold L. Cuerda

Administrative Assistant Chief Operating Officer

3
Received by:

(Sgd.) Nestor Ybañez

NESTOR’S 1ST LETTER

Dear Sir, Maam.

Una sa lahat Galing po ako sa ayala Center Nagdeliver po ako ng

Hardware Materials. Consignee. (NKD.) True Value ayala ang Ginamit Kop o
na track yong GSE 906 Boom Truck. Matapus yung delivery sa True Value
Etd: 5:30 pr. Tapus Pabalik nap o ako sa Explorer Office at Pagdating ko po
sa office ipinasok ko kaagad yong Boom Track. At pauwina sana ako at
lumabas si rena sa office. At Sinabihan ako ni rena na Wagkamunag umuwi.
Sa bi ni rena na ihatid muna ako sa Sm, at Sinabihan ako ni rena yong
Multicab ang Gagamitin natin at Papunta na ako sa multicab at Binuksan ko
yung likod ng Multicab. At si rena malapit lang siya sa bintana. At Nilapitan
ko po si rena. At sinabi ko po ni rena na ibaba ko yong Gulong at Jack.at
hindi ko po pinansin na may karga yong multicab Dahil madilim. At meron
napansin si rena sa akin Dahil maingay sa lo-ob ng multicab dahil sa
bintana ko idinada-an yong malili-it na mga kahoy kaya maingay. At
ipinaalam ko na po ni Jomar Timog na yong malili-it na kaho i sa akin nalang
ito. at kaya isinakay ko yong kahoy saa multicab. at kunti lang ang kinuha
ko Dahil nagmamadali ako. Dahil masama and pakiramdam ko. at Agad
kong pinalabas yong multicab sa Warehouse. at Paglabas ko na sa gate.
Bumaba ako sa multicab. at sisihan ko n asana yong gate. at lumapit si rena
sa multicab at binuksan nya yong bintana ng multicab. at nakita ni rena
yong Cable Wire. At sinabi nya sa akin Nestor bakit may nakakarga pang
Cable Wire. At sabi ko hindi ko na pansinyan at hindi ko nakita yan dahil
madilim sa lo-ob. Ng Warehouse.

at sinabi ni rena na ibaba yan ang Cable wire. Dahil sa labas ng office
ipapark uong multicab at sabi ko ni rena Dito nalang dahil mabigat meron
naman itong Padlock sa likod. Kong hindi lang nagpahatid si rena sa akin
wala n asana akong Problema ngayon. Wala akong intinsyon gumawa ng

4
masama sa Companya. at isa pa sir Pesonal n autos ni rena yon, off duty na
ako. Hindi ko alam sir kong bakit ganyan ang ginawa ni rena na siya naman
ang nag-utos sa akin na ihatid siya sa sm. At sa tagal ko na sa Companya
ito sir Hinding hindi ko magagawa yan.

Sana maunawa-an at Maintifihan ninyo sir and aking Paliwanag.

Very Respectfully Your’s

SGD. NESTOR YBANEZ

DRIVER

2nd LETTER TO NESTOR

To : Nestor Ybanez

From : Guido S, Cuerda

Subject: Incedent Report on May 4, 2007

I have write a letter to you to explain in writing the reported attempt to bring
out one roll of cable wire loaded in the multi cab. Two rolls cable wires are
reported missing in the last couple of weeks.

I received your explanation letter dated June 8, 2007 and gind out nothing
that will clear your name that will contradict the testimony of Rena, Allan
and Jomar.

The following persons have manifested in direct testimony:

5
Allan Suzon- he was the one who used the multicab on May 4, 2007 and
parked the vehicle empty in front of thewarehouse at 3pm He confirmed the
van empty.

Jomar Timog-Bring or paked empty the multi cab inside the warehouse. he
confirmed the multicab was empty.

Rena Lirasan-At about 5:30pm see you(Nestor Ybanex) loading items in multi
cab inside the warehouse. When you bring out the multi cab, Rena
discovered one roll cable wire inside multi cab.

Conclusion- You have attempted to take out the cable wire without authority
with bad faith. Based on the above-conclusion you are given another
opportunity to submit further explanation why you should not be terminated
for the unfortunate incident.

(Sgd.) Guido S. Cuerda

NESTOR’S LETTER

07-04-07

Dear Sir,

Supposedly, ganito po and ng yari sir. Sabi po ni rena. Sa

akin, Wagkamunag umuwi ihatoid mo ako sa sm. At sa malinis
ang hangarin ko sa kanya sir. Kahit labas na ito sa Companya
and Paguutos nya ginawa ko pa rin and trabaho ko. Kaya hindi
ko inisip na ganito ang mangyari sa akin. At isa pa wala na ito
sa Deliery. Kaya hindi ko tiningnan ng mabuti salikod kaya yon
ang kasalanan ko. Dahil masama and pakiramdam ko no-on.

Basta ang masasabi ko lnag sir na wala akong intinsyon

na gawin ito sa Companya. Kaya agad ko lang pinalabas yong
multicab sa warehouse. at paglabas ng multicab sa Warehse
ayon nakita ni rena at sa labas lang po sir nakita yong Cable
wire. Dahil maliwanag na! at ang sabi ni rena bakit nakasakay
yan and Cable wire. Kaya ang sabi ko. baka inilagay lang dyan,
kaya hindi ko masisi si rena kong ganon nalang nasa isipan
nya.

6
 Iniulit ko po sir. Hindi ko po Talagang magagawa yan sa
Companya nato. Sir. Hindi kop o sisira-in ang Pangalan ko. at 9
na ta-o kong Nagtrabaho sa companya nato. Sir. Bakit ko po
Gagawin ito sa Companya. Nga alam kong Mabubuting
Companya and Explorer na pinasukan ko.

at ang nakasanayan Kona sir. Minsan tong Closed van

ang gagamitin ni rena para ihatid siya. Kinabukasan nalaman
ko lang may laman sa likod and Closed van ang gagamitim ni
rena para ihatid siya. Kinabukasan nalaman ko lang may laman
sa likod ng Closed van. Pero naka padlock poi to saa likod. Unit
po ito ni Jose Pesaras. Supposedly ginamit din ito sa paghatid ni
rena and closed van.

Mahal kong trabaho ko sir. Dito nabubuhay and pamilya

ko sa Companya nato at kasya nap o itong sweldo ko para
ipaka0in sa Pamilyako! Sir. Sorry po talaga siskapin ko po na
hindi na ito mauulit pa ang incedent. Sir sorry po ginawa ko lang
ang trabaho ko bilang isang Driver.

Sir nag trabaho ko po. Madali po akong utosan kahit

anong trabaho. Hindi po ako Nagriklamo kong sa-an ako ilalagay
Basta trabaho lang. at minsan sir. Kapagnag-scort si. V. Castilio
sa akin poi to ipinagkatiwala yong Boomtruck.

Sir kinakailangan po ako manatili Dito sa Companya nato. Dahil

po sir. Malili-it pa po ang mga anak ko sir. Dito lang po ako
umaasa sa Companya nato.

at sana po sir. Ma-intindihan ninyo po ang paliwanag ko.

RESPECT FULLY YOUR’S

(Sgd.) NESTOR YBAÑEZ

DRIVER EFC. CEBU

July 25, 2007

To : Mr. Nestor Ybanez

Driver/Expediter

From : (Sgd.) Gudo S. Cuerda

President & CEO

7
 Witten report of Mr. Jomar Timog dated May 23, 2007 prompted me
to conduct an investigation on the incident last may 4, 2007, of which you
were directly involved in the aborted pilfering of one (1) reel cable wire inside
the warehouse. reports from our investigations showed that the multicab
with Plate Number JBN 739 was empty as attested to by Mr. Jomar Timog
and Mr. Allan Suzon. Another witness, Ms. Rena Lirasan, collaborated on
their testimonies claimed that she herself saw you loading the said item
inside the multicab. Prior to this incident, two (2) rolls of cable wires were
reported missing inside the warehouse.

When you drove the multicab out of the warehouse, Rena was surprised to
see the cable wire inside the multicab. Considering that when she asked you
if the van was loaded with cargoes, you said “Walang laman ang multicab.”.
She then found out that cable wire was hidden under scrap woods. You
failed to give a credible and convincing answer when you were asked about
the presence of the cable inside the van. This lead me to believe that you
had the intention to steal the said cargo.

We wrote you a letter dated

Annex M and M-1 complainants’ pay slips and are offered as proof of
their complainants’ salary and other benefits.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANTS WERE ILLEGALLY

DISMISSED AND THUS ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT;

2. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT SHOULD BE

COMPELLED TO PAY TO THE COMPLAINANT TO PAY
THE LATTER THER MONEY CLAIMS;

3. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANTS ARE ENTITLED TO

ATTORNEYS FEES.

8
 DISCUSSIONS AND ARGUMENTS.

1. WHETHER OR NOT
COMPLAINANTS WERE
ILLEGALLY DISMISSED
AND THUS ENTITLED TO
REINSTATEMENT.

It is the strong contention of the herein complainants that they were

illegally dismissed.

Section 1 of Rule of the Implementing Rules and Regulation of the

Labor Code provides that no worker shall be dismissed except for lack of
work for just or authorized causes provided by law and after due process.

The two facets of this legal provision are: (a) the legality of the act of
dismissal, that is, dismissal under the grounds provided for under Article
282 or Article 283 of the labor Code; and (b) and the legality in the manner
of dismissal.

The illegality of the act of dismissal constitutes discharge without just

or authorized cause while illegality in the manner of dismissal is dismissal
without due process.

Respondent VECO dismissed Complainants Bacaltos and Rivera not

only without just or authorized cause but also without due process.

In the Establishment Termination Report (Annex K and submarkings)

which respondent VECO submitted to the Department of Labor and
Employment, respondent listed complainant Bacaltos’ Position as Shift
Supervisor while complainant Rivera’s position as Control Clerk A.

It must be worth repeating that as early as February 1, 2000,

Complainants have already been occupying positions of Supervisor, Revenue
Protection Group ( Bacaltos) and Revenue Protection Staff (Rivera). Annexes B
to G would confirm that indeed as of May 2004, complainant have already been

9
performing their positions as Supervisor, Revenue Protection Group ( Bacaltos)
and Revenue Protection Staff (Rivera) for more that four (4) years.

Also worth stressing is the fact the Collective Bargaining Agreement,

Article IV thereof provides as follows, to wit:

“ARTICLE IV”
“PREFERENTIAL RIGHTS OF EMPLOYMENT AND FACTORS FOR
PROMOTION”
“SECTION 3. Temporary assignment. Any employee, who
may be designated to temporarily take the place of the
incumbent holding the position of higher grade due to the latter’s
absence or incapacity or to temporary fill the vacant position of
higher grade, shall assume such a position in an “Acting”
capacity for a period not exceeding six (6) moths except vacancies
caused by employees who are called for temporarily military
service provided that the employee concerned shall receive the
difference of his present salary; and the minimum rate range of
higher grade but not less that FIFTY (P50.00) PESOS per month in
the form of allowance. In case his temporary assignment exceeds
six months, he shall be considered permanent in the said
position.”

Thus, for all intents and purposes, and by operation of law, the
complainants are occupying the positions of Supervisor, Revenue Protection
Group (Bacaltos) and Revenue Protection Staff (Rivera) as early as February
1, 2000 and up to the time they were unceremoniously illegally dismissed.

So that an employee may be legally dismissed due to redundancy, it is

elementary that their position must be legally and validly declared as
redundant.

In the case of ORLANDO M. ESCAREAL vs. NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION [G.R. No. 99359, September 2, 1992.], the
Supreme Court reiterated it constant ruling with respect to redundancy,
Says the Supreme Court:

“In Wiltshire File Co., Inc. vs. NLRC, 29 this Court held
that redundancy, for purposes of the Labor Code, exists where
the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably
demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise; a
position is redundant when it is superfluous, and superfluity of a
position or positions may be the outcome of a number of factors,

10
such as the overhiring of workers, a decreased volume of
business or the dropping of a particular product line or service
activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the
enterprise. Redundancy in an employer's personnel force,
however, does not necessarily or even ordinarily refer to
duplication of work. That no other person was holding the same
position which the dismissed employee held prior to the
termination of his services does not show that his position had
not become redundant.”

“Private respondent PRC had no valid and acceptable basis

to declare the position of Pollution Control and Safety Manager
redundant as the same may not be considered as superfluous; by
the express mandate of the provisions earlier cited, said
positions are required by law. Thus, it cannot be gainsaid that
the services of the petitioner are in excess of what is reasonably
required by the enterprise. Otherwise, PRC would not have
allowed ten (10) long years to pass before opening its eyes to that
fact; neither would it have increased the petitioner's salary to
P23,100.00 a month effective 1 April 1988. The latter by itself is
an unequivocal admission of the specific and special need for the
position and an open recognition of the valuable services
rendered by the petitioner. Such admission and recognition are
inconsistent with the proposition that petitioner's positions are
redundant. It cannot also be argued that the said functions were
duplicative, and hence could be absorbed by the duties pertaining
to the Industrial Engineering Manager. If indeed they were, and
assuming that the Industrial Engineering department of the PRC
had been created earlier, petitioner's positions should not have
been created and filled up. If, on the other hand, the department
was created later, and there is no evidence to this effect, and it
was to absorb the petitioner's positions, then there would be no
reason for the unexplained delay in its implementation, the
restructuring then should have been executed long before the
salary increases in petitioner's favor. That petitioner's positions
were not duplicitous is best evidenced by the PRC's recognition of
their imperative need thereof, this is underscored by the fact that
Miguelito S. Navarro, the company's Industrial Engineering
Manager, was designated as Pollution Control and Safety
Manager on the very same day of petitioner's termination. While
the petitioner had over ten (10) years of experience as a pollution
control and safety officer, Navarro was a virtual greenhorn
lacking the requisite training and experience for the assignment.
A cursory perusal of his bio-data 31 reveals that it was only
several months after his appointment that he attended his first
Occupational Safety & Health Seminar (14-17 November 1988),
moreover, it was only after his second seminar (Loss Control
Management Seminar — 6-9 December 1988) that the PRC
requested his accreditation with the Safety Organization of the
Philippines. 32 In trying to prop up Navarro's competence for the
position, PRC alleges that the former finished from the University
of the Philippines with a degree in Chemical Engineering, took
some units in pollution in the process and had "undergone job
training in pollution in cement firms through the Bureau of
Mines."

11
 In reference to the above quoted Supreme Court ruling, not only was
the positions of the complainant not redundant, because the respondent
VECO have allowed the complainant to stay in their respective positions for
more that four (4) years, the respondent also failed to declare the same as
redundant.

To reiterate, complainant Bacaltos was occupying the position of

Supervisor, Revenue Protection Group since February 1, 2000 while
complainant Rivera was occupying the position of a Revenue Protection Staff
also since February 1, 2000.

Due Process

Not only were the Complainants’ dismissal not by virtue of a legal or

authorized cause, complainants were also denied due process when they
were dismissed.

Article 283 of the Labor Code, as amended, reads as follows, to wit:

“ART. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of

personnel. – The employer may also terminate the employment of
any employee due to the installation of labor saving devices,
redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or
cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless
the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of
this Title, by serving a written notice on the worker and the
Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before
the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the
installation of labor saving devices or redundancy, the worker
affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent
to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay
for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of
retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or
cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due
to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation
pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half
(1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A
fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered as one (1)
whole year.”

Complainant never received any notification of their dismissal, worse,

respondent VECO’s notification with the Department of Labor and
Employment was made rather irregularly.

The logbook of the DOLE with respect Notification received by the said
DOLE, Cebu City (See Annex and submarkings) showed that the document

12
Establishment Termination Report was received allegedly on May 14, 2004
to make it appear that the Respondent VECO company have complied the
mandated 30 day notice of termination before the intended date of
termination which was June 15, 2004.

However, it is very clear that the entry in the said logbook was highly
irregular. Whereas all the other entries were made on the very first line and
leaving the large space above empty reserved for heading, the entry of the
VECO was made on the large space above and not on the first line. Also
while all the other entries were numbered in chronological order with no
subnumbers, the respondent VECO’s entry was entered into as number 5-a.

This is highly irregular and a clear case of tampered entry in the

logbook to make it appear that respondent VECO has complied with the 30-
day requirement in connivance with the records-in-charge.

Therefore it is very clear that complainants were illegally dismissed by

respondent VECO and not only that, they were also denied due process
when they were unceremoniously illegally dismissed.

2. WHETHER OR NOT
RESPONDENT SHOULD
BE COMPELLED TO PAY
TO THE COMPLAINANT
TO PAY THE LATTER
THIER MONEY CLAIMS;

Having exhaustively discussed that the complainants were illegally

dismissed, complainants now endeavors to discuss the effects of illegal
dismissal.

In the case of Rodriguez vs. NRLC [G.R. No. 153947, 2002 Dec 5],
the Supreme Court reiterated their constant ruling in case of illegal
dismissal, to wit:

“Under Art. 279 of the Labor Code, an employee who is

unjustly dismissed is entitled to reinstatement, without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges, and to the payment of his full
backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their
monetary equivalent, computed from the time his compensation

13
 was withheld from him (which, as a rule, is from the time of his
illegal dismissal) up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

Thus, based on the foregoing Supreme Court Ruling, since the

complainants were illegally dismissed by the respondent VECO, it is but
logical that VECO shall be condemned by the Honorable Labor Arbiter to
pay the complainants’ money claims, more specifically to:

1. Reinstate complainants Henry Bacaltos and Frederick

Rivera without loss of seniority rights and other
privileges,

2. Pay for the backwages of complainants, inclusive of

allowances, and other benefits or their monetary
equivalent, computed from the time his compensation
was withheld from him (which, as a rule, is from the
time of his illegal dismissal) up to the time of his
actual reinstatement.

More specifically, the respondent VECO shall be condemned to pay the

complainants in the following manner, to wit:

HENRY BACALTOS:

Date Hired : August 15, 1977

Date Terminated : June 15, 2004
Length of Service : 27 years
Total Monthly Salary : P61,055.00

From July 15, 2004-Dec 31, 2004

Backwages including Unused Sick Leave, 13 th Month Pay, 14th Month

Pay, Christmas Bonus, Holiday Pay, Vacation Leave, Rice Ration,
Emergency Leave , Supervisor Allowance and Profit sharing as of 2007:

Total Sum:

SIX MILLION FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND NINE

HUNDRED SIXTY AND FIVE CENTAVOS (P6,428,960.05)

Please see Annex N attached hereof and made as an integral hereof.

14
FREDERICK RIVERA:

Date Hired : July 21, 1986

Date Terminated : June 15, 2004
Length of Service : 18 years
Total Monthly Salary : P33,175.00

From July 15, 2004-Dec 31, 2004

Backwages including Unused Sick Leave, 13 th Month Pay, 14th Month

Pay, Christmas Bonus, Holiday Pay, Vacation Leave, Rice Ration,
Emergency Leave and Profit sharing as of 2007:

Total Sum:

TEN MILLION THREE HUNDRED TWENTY THREE THOUSAND SIX

HUNDRED FOURTEEN AND TWENTY TWO CENTAVOS.

Please see Annex O AND O-1 attached hereof and made as an integral
hereof.

3. WHETHER OR NOT
COMPLAINANTS ARE
ENTITLED TO
ATTORNEYS FEES.

Complainants, because of the wrongful acts of the respondents, were

forced to file the instant action. Complainants were forced to engage the
services of the undersigned counsel and they also incurred expenses aside
from the payment of the professional services of counsel.

By reason of the malevolent acts of the respondents, in the interest of

social and substantial justice, the respondents must be suffered to pay
attorney’s fees in the amount as the Honorable Labor arbiter may deem just
and proper under the circumstances.

Attach herewith as Annex P and P-1 and made as an integral part

hereof are the affidavits of complainants Bacaltos and Rivera.

PRAYER

15
 Wherefore, premises considered, it is most strongly prayed of this
Honorable Labor Arbiter, to render judgment in favor of the complainant
and against the respondents in the following manner, to wit:

1. Declare that the complainants were illegally dismissed by

the respondents and order the REINSTATEMENT of the
complainants and to order respondent to pay separation pay
and full backwages;

2. Order the respondent to pay the complainant attorney’s fees.

Other reliefs as are just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted, February 26, 2007.

ATTY. FRANCIS GEORGE F. DINOPOL

Counsel for the Respondents
Room 305 G.K. Chua Building
Sancianco Street, Cebu City
Roll of Attorneys Number 50084
PTR No. 1432564, 01-09-2007 LapuLapu City
IBP No. 705264, 02-27-2007, Cebu Chapter

Copy furnished:

Atty. Joselito Pedaria

ALU Bldg., Port Area,
6000 Cebu City

16