Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sample Rejoinder PDF Free
Sample Rejoinder PDF Free
ARVIN A. PASCUAL,
Complainant,
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
REJOINDER
(To Respondents’ Reply)
PREFATORY
“The name of the game is fair play, not foul play. We cannot allow
a legal skirmish where, from the start, one of the protagonists enters
the arena with one arm tied to his back.” (Separate concurring opinion
of Justice Teodoro Padilla in Republic vs. Sandigan Bayan [G.R. Nos.
109430-43 December 28, 1994])
Upon the other hand, below is a reproduction of Complainant’s pay slip fabricated
by Respondents.
1.3.1 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that
former Operations Manager Glenn Kuan illegally enticed Complainant on
18 October 2014 to resign (please see p. 10 of Complainant’s Position
Paper and its attached Annexes “C-1”).
1.3.2 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that
it was Respondent Argana who prevented Complainant from participating
in the administrative hearing by exhibiting cold disdain to all of
Complainant’s requests in contravention of prevailing law and
jurisprudence. Among these requests which were contumaciously denied
by Respondent Argana are (a) to be provided with copies of all documents,
records, and evidence against the latter in the possession of Respondents.
The intention of Complainant is to afford his legal counsel the opportunity
of prior review. Enabling him (Complainant) therefore to properly and
1.3.3 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that
on 25 November 2014, Complainant filed a grievance in relation to the five
– day suspension jointly imposed on him by Respondents Sukumar, Argana
and Reyes. Complainant sent his grievance notice via electronic mail
correspondence to (but said grievance notice was treated with cold
disdain by) Respondent Sukumar. (please see Annexes “P” to “P-1” of
Complainant’s Position Paper)
1.3.4 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that
Respondents peremptorily deducted the amount of Php6,896.50 from his
salary due on 28 November 2014. To substantiate the illegal deduction,
Respondents suppressed the verified medical certificates submitted by
Complainant. (please see Annexes “A” to “A-10” and Annex “B” of
Complainant’s Reply)
1.3.5 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact of
Respondents Argana’s and Lee’s contumacious refusal to issue
Complainant’s certificate of employment despite written demands. The
refusal of Respondents to issue certificate of employment to a terminated
employee like Complainant is a patent violation of the Labor Code (please
see Annex “T-2” of Complainant’s Position Paper)
1.3.6 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that
Respondent Reyes humiliated Complainant on 3 December 2014 when he
submitted the Reply to CARE form 1 (Notice to Explain) that Respondent
Reyes served to Complainant on 2 December 2014 with stern warning that
should Complainant fail to submit his written explanation within 24
hours, the latter will be suspended.
1.3.8 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that
Respondents Canda and Reyes are fully aware that Respondent Sitel had
been incurring pecuniary losses ever since Diosdado Remion was placed
on off-the-phone status effective 14 May 2014 because the latter
continuously receive salary without productive output. (please see Annex
“C” of Complainant’s Reply)
1.3.9 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that
Complainant, on his own volition, coordinated with the Comcast Quality
Team as evidenced by an electronic mail correspondence dated 21 July
2014. Complainant in truth and in fact requested for a transcription of the
call between Remion and the customer who accused the latter of exhibiting
rude behavior on 13 May 2014. But the Comcast Quality Team failed to
provide him with the transcript of call. Without the transcript of call,
there is no case against Remion. (please see Annex “D” of
Complainant’s Reply)
a] Willful failure to act on the case of Mr. Remion who with his full
knowledge was loitering for four (4) months and still receiving his
salary (last paragraph p.3); and
The reason is plain and obvious. One need not stretch the imagination too
far. Respondents maliciously suppressed the presentation of these email
correspondences because they could not bear the thought that being
managers and senior manager they would be penalized for gross
negligence in the performance of duties. There is no better escape goat
and later on as sacrificial lamb but herein Complainant. Respondents knew
what was coming. In order to save their neck, they had to devise a scheme
to pass all the blame to Complainant. Thus, they displayed the kind of
conduct all of which were punitive in nature and offensive to elementary
norms of justice and fair play (e.g. infringement of constitutional right to
due process, insults, coercion, discrimination, illegal deduction from salary,
imposition of misplaced superiority, etc.) so that Complainant would be
compelled to leave Respondent Sitel.
2. Respondents alleged in their Reply (p.11) that the notice of suspension jointly
served to Complainant by Respondents Sukumar, Argana, and Reyes on 21 November
2014 was valid in form despite non-compliance with the pertinent provisions of Sitel
Code of Conduct.
Anent the foregoing, Complainant repleads and adopt the allegations in paragraph
#1 (p.46 of Complainant’s Position Paper) and paragraph #2 (p.47 Complainant’s
Position Paper) insofar as they are material, relevant, and pertinent and not contrary to
the allegations made in this Rejoinder.
The jurisprudential guide is that the burden of proof rests with Respondents. In
Libcap Marketing Corp. vs. Baquial (G.R. No. 192011 30 June 2014), the Supreme Court
held, to wit:
The truth is that Complainant had been very transparent in all his dealings with
Respondents. Complainant tirelessly communicated with Respondents. Upon the other
hand, Respondents treated everything with cold disdain. They simply shrugged their
shoulders down to all of Complainant’s communication efforts. Respondents treated all
communications of Complainant with cold disdain.
Additionally, the case of The Philippine American Life and General Insurance Co.
vs. Angelita Gramaje, G.R. No. 156963 [November 11, 2004] is also instructive, to wit:
[a] Sent another copy to Respondent Reyes via electronic mail correspondence
on the following day, 12 December 2014 at 9:24 A.M. (Annex “U” up to Annex “U-
3” of Complainant’s position paper); and
[b] Printed another copy of the same notice and sent it to Respondent Reyes via
registered mail with return card on 15 December 2014 (Annex “V” up to Annex “V-
3” of Complainant’s position paper).
The point in issue in the instant case is whether the execution of the resignation
letter tendered by Complainant to Respondents Lee and Reyes was voluntary or
involuntary. Put differently, whether the execution of the resignation letter tendered by
Complainant and alleged to have been formally received by Respondent Reyes on 18
December 2014 using a fabricated documentary evidence was voluntary or involuntary.
Simply stated, the point in issue here is not the acceptance of the resignation letter.
Instead, the voluntariness or involuntariness of its execution by Complainant. The
jurisprudential guide is that onus thereof rests with Respondents.
The fact of filing a resignation letter alone does not shift the burden of
proving that the employee’s dismissal was for a just and valid cause from
the employer to the employee. In Mora v. Avesco, we ruled that should the
employer interpose the defense of resignation, it is still incumbent upon the
employer to prove that the employee voluntarily resigned.
XXXX
While the letter states that Peñaflor’s resignation was irrevocable, it does
not necessarily signify that it was also voluntarily executed. Precisely
because of the attendant hostile and discriminatory working environment,
Peñaflor decided to permanently sever his ties with Outdoor Clothing. This
falls squarely within the concept of constructive dismissal that jurisprudence
defines, among others, as involuntarily resignation due to the harsh, hostile,
and unfavorable conditions set by the employer. It arises when a clear
discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer exists and has
become unbearable to the employee. The gauge for constructive dismissal
is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would feel
compelled to give up his employment under the prevailing circumstances.”
9. In pages #18 and #19 of their Reply, Respondents, like a broken music record
of the past era insisted that Complainant’s absences from work on the following dates
were without valid or justifiable reason: Nov. 10, 13, 17, 22, 23, and 24, 2014.
In People vs. Chua Hiong, C.A. [51 O.G. 1932], the Supreme Court succinctly said,
to wit:
But that is not the case when it is aimed at a person’s good name. Once
the aspersion is cast its sting clings and the one thus defamed may avail
himself of all necessary means to shake it off. He may hit back with another
libel which, if adequate, will be justified.”
A] Administrative Circular No. 14-93 issued by the Supreme Court on July 15,
1993.
B] Section 409 of Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991.
C] Decision of the Supreme Court in Agbayani vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
183623 25 June 2012.
11. In Peñaflor vs. Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing Corporation (G.R. No. 177114,
21 January 2010), the Supreme Court emphasized three basic labor law principles, to wit:
Complainant firmly believed that the Honorable Labor Arbiter will see through
Respondents’ false propaganda and will not be misled into believing their lies as against
Complainant’s pristine record of eight long and dedicated years of service in Sitel
Philippines. It bears stressing that Respondents’ drama of intrigues and persecution
continuously bring untold sufferings to Complainant and his three dependent children.
PRAYER
1) Full back wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time Complainant was illegally dismissed on 8 December
2014 up to the time of the final resolution of the instant case (Please see Annex “EE” of
Complainant’s Position Paper for monthly salary and other benefits computation);
2) Separation pay amounting to one month pay for every year of service starting
on the date Complainant was hired on 26 October 2006 up to the final resolution of the
instant case;
4) Php5,725.19 representing payment for the five (5) days of illegal suspension;
Finally, Complainant respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be deemed
just and equitable under the premises.