Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. III
City of San Fernando, Pampanga
***

MR. E

Complainant,

- versus- NLRC CASE NO. RAB-lll-12-34567-89

ABC CORPORATION,
MR. A-President, and MR.
C- HR Head

Respondents.

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

COMPLAINANT'S POSITION PAPER

The COMPLAINANT, pro se, respectfully states:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

"Court is committed to the policy of protecting the

rights of the workers and promote their welfare and has
always been quick to rise to defense in the rights of labor.
Protection to labor extends to all local and overseas, organized
and unorganized in public and private sectors (Lopez vs.
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, 462 SCRA
428)."

THE CASE

This is a case for, Illegal dismissal (Constructive), Non-payment of

th
13 Month Pay, Non-payment of Separation Pay and Moral and Exemplary
Damages; and Attorney’s fees, Non-payment of Holiday and Rest Day Pay,
full backwages and money claims filed by herein complainant against
herein respondents.
 THE PARTIES

1. Complainant MR. E, is of legal age, Filipino, with residential

address at 123 Road, Magnolia Street, Malolos, Bulacan, and a
shop man at respondent ABC Corporation and may be served
with summonses and other legal processes of this Honorable
Office at said address or through the undersigned counsel or
law firm at the address herein below indicated.
2. Respondent ABC Corporation (ABC for brevity), with office
address in Malolos City, Bulacan, Philippines, where it may be
served with summonses and other legal processes of this
Honorable Office, on the other hand, is a corporation or
business entity (engaged in retreading or recapping of tire
services) existing and operating under and by virtue of
Philippine laws while individual respondent Mr. A is its
President, and Mr. C is its HR Head and the person primarily
responsible for the illegal dismissal of herein complainant,
among other illegal and illicit acts subject of this case. All may
be served with summonses and other legal processes of this
Honorable Office at said address ( Malolos City, Bulacan,
Philippines).

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. As clearly indicated in the duly accomplished Complaint Form

of this case, Complainant was a shop man at ABC Corporation,
which is a company engaged in retreading or recapping of tire
services.
4. Complainant started his work at ABC Corporation as helper in
April 15, 2000, then as shop man at the time of filing of
complaint with a monthly salary of P10,000.00
5. Complainant refused to report for work due to great fear on his
health from COVID and took his leave of absence for a month.
6. Complainant now claims that after taking a leave of absence as
he needs to go to the province, he was not allowed to return
back and report for work and was allegedly constructively
dismissed.
7. Complainant was also not paid his 13th month pay, separation
pay and holiday payand rest day pay, and full backwages.
Hence, this case.

ISSUE:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY
DISMISSED
II.
 WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS WERE, JOINTLY
AND SOLIDARILY, LIABLE FOR ALL THE MONEY CLAIMS
HEREIN CLAIMED INCLUDING MORAL AND EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, ATTORNEY'S FEES, LITIGATION AND THE LIKE
EXPENSES AND COST OF THE SUIT.

DISCUSSION/ ARGUMENTS
COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY
DISMISSED

Complainant was illegally dismissed. Being a regular employee as

defined by law (Labor Code, as amended), he being hired and engaged to
perform works (Helper and was then a Shop man) which are clearly and
indisputably necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
respondent ABC, a company engaged in retreading or recapping of tire
services, he cannot be dismissed except for ground/s or cause/s as provided
for by the Labor Code, as amended. Definitely, he cannot be dismissed
without any ground or cause at all, as in this case.
Without any further argument, the dismissal of herein complainant
subject of this case is illegal in all points.

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS

WERE, JOINTLY AND SOLIDARILY,
LIABLE FOR ALL THE MONEY CLAIMS
HEREIN CLAIMED INCLUDING MORAL
AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES,
ATTORNEY'S FEES, LITIGATION AND
THE LIKE EXPENSES AND COST OF THE
SUIT.

A simple reading of the complaint of this case will readily reveal that
respondents violated certain labor standard laws.

Respondents must be reminded that burden of proof of payment of

wages and other benefits rest on the employer.

It is settled that once the employee has set out with particularity in
his complaint, position paper, affidavits and other documents the labor
standard benefits he is entitled to, and which he alleged that the employer
failed to pay him, it becomes the employer's burden to prove that it has paid
these money claims. One who pleads payment has the burden of proving it,
and even where the employees must allege nonpayment, the general rule is
that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the
plaintiff to prove nonpayment.
 The reason for the rule is that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls,
records, remittances and other similar documents — which will show that
overtime, differentials, service incentive leave and other claims of workers
have been paid — are not in the possession of the worker but in the custody
and absolute control of the employer.

For purposes, however, of expeditious, fair and judicious

determination of the money claims aspect of this case, complainant hereby
respectfully moves that a subpoena duces tecum be issued against the
respondent ABC to submit to this Honorable Office complainant's payrolls,
pay slips, daily time records, among others, for the entire period of his
employment with respondent SLI. The submission of these documents will
relieve the parties of undue burden of establishing anything in relation to
these claims and will surely provide this Honorable Office ample and/or
sufficient bases in fairly and judiciously resolving these claims.

As a proximate result of respondents' unlawful acts as clearly

adverted to above, complainant suffered untold miseries, sleepless nights,
loss of appetite, shame, serious anxiety, ridicule, among others, brought
about by the sudden deprivation of his only means of livelihood. He being
the bread winner of his family.

All of the illegal and improvident acts of the respondents discussed

above, which are part and parcel of their malevolent and anti-workers
inclination and attitudes, have been motivated by ill-will and illicit
intentions and committed with willful and evident bad faith.

Verily, the complainant is entitled to moral damages as provided for

under Articles 2217 and 2219 in relation to Article 21 and paragraph 6 of
Article 32 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The foregoing provisions
read as follows:

"Article 2217. Moral damages include physical

suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation,
and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary
computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the
proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission."
(Emphasis supplied)

Article 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the

following and analogous cases:

xxx xxx xxx

"(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26,

 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35." (Underscoring Supplied)

Article 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or

injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage."

"Article 32. Any public officer or employee, or any

private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs,
defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of
the following rights and liberties of another person shall be
liable to the latter for damages:

Xxx xxx
"(6) The right against deprivation of property without due
process of law."

Since it is clear that the complainant is entitled to moral damages,

perforce he is likewise entitled to exemplary damages pursuant to Article
2229 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which provides:

"Article 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are

imposed, by way of example or correction for the public
good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or
compensatory damages."

In Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. NLRC (323

SCRA 86), the Supreme Court held:

xxx xxx xxx

Unfair labor practices violates the constitutional rights

of workers and employees to self-organization, are inimical to
the legitimate interests of both labor and management,
including their rights to bargain collectively and otherwise
deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual
respect; and disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion
of healthy and stable labormanagement relations. As the
conscience of the government, it is the Court's sworn duty to
ensure that none trifles with labor rights.

For this reason, we find it proper in this case to impose

moral and exemplary damages on private respondent."
 Finally, having been compelled to engage the services of counsel to
vindicate his rights, complainant is further entitled to attorney's fees
equivalent to ten (10) percent of the total judgment amount that may be
awarded herein. For as the Supreme Court held in Philippine National
Construction Corporation vs. NLRC, 277 SCRA 91, thus:

"It is settled that in actions for recovery of wages or

where an employee was forced to litigate and, thus, incur
expenses to protect his rights and interests, the award of
attorney's fees is legally and morally justifiable."
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most
respectfully prayed for that after due consideration, a
DECISION BE RENDERED in favor of the complainant as
follows:

1. DECLARING complainant to have been denied due process

and his dismissal as illegal;

2. DIRECTING respondents to reinstate the complainant to his

former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and with
FULL BACK WAGES from the time he was deprived of his work until he
is actually reinstated to his former position;

3. HOLDING all respondents LIABLE, jointly and solidarily, for

DAMAGES in the amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND
(P200,OOO.OO) PESOS as moral damages and ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND ("100,000.00) PESOS for exemplary damages.

4. HOLDING all respondents LIABLE, jointly and solidarily, for

all the money claims herein claimed.

5. ISSUE A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM against respondent

ABC CORPORATION for it to submit to this Honorable Office
complainant's payrolls, pay slips, daily time records, among others, for the
entire period of his employment with respondent ABC for the just and
prompt determination of the proper award that may be adjudged in favor of
the complainant in this case.

6. DECLARING respondents liable to reimburse complainant all

his litigation and other related expenses, including attorney's fees equivalent
to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award.

OTHER RELIEFS deemed just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.
 Quezon City for the City of San Fernando, Pampanga, 2nd September
2020.

Atty. Khristienne Rian C. Bernabe

Atty. Bayani A. Ramos
Counsels for the Complainant
Bulacan State University
City of Malolos, Bulacan