Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Regional Arbitration Branch
Quezon City

NLRC NCR Case No. 10-00073-22

Hon. Elenita L. Esguerra-Yu
Labor Arbiter

MARY JANE G. SADIASA,

Complainant,

-v-

365 DESIGNS RETAILING INC./

JERALD SZE,
Respondents.

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

REPLY
(To Respondent’s Position Paper dated 11 November 2022)

COMPLAINANT, the undersigned, by herself and unto this Honorable Office, most
respectfully submits this REPLY (To Respondent’s Position Paper dated 11 November 2022)
and avers the following, to wit:

I.
PREFATORY STATEMENT

Unsurprisingly, not only has the Respondent in this case lied under oath in its Position
Paper, but it has also fabricated evidence to try and mitigate its own shortcomings and provide
“evidence” that the Complainant was not illegally dismissed.

This Position Paper is a fraud and a fabrication of many of the events leading up to the
Complainant’s Illegal Dismissal, and the Respondent’s actions before, during, and after that
show bad faith on their part.

Complainant received the Position Paper of the Respondent on 24 November 2022, by

courier delivery, which means the Complainant has a period of ten (10) days therefrom within
which to file her Verified Reply, or until 5 December 2022, as the tenth day, 4 December 2022,
is a Sunday.

Hence this herein REPLY submitted by the Complainant is timely filed.

II.
DISCUSSION

In its baseless and evidence-free position paper, the Respondent makes a number of
claims in its Stipulation of Facts that are simply untrue, as well as fraudulent and fictitious, and
even fakes evidence to try and prove it is right.

For Example:
 In Paragraph 8, the Respondent claims that the Complainant was provided with “specific
instructions and duties”. As its evidence, in its Annex D to D-2, the Respondent provides an
Affidavit from someone that allegedly bought items from the Garage Sales, and including the
items bought and amounts paid, some random text messages about receipts, and a message from
Sheila Gale asking the Complainant for the End of Day Report for the garage sale on 13 June
2022 (the third sale held) and asking “@Juan” for the deposit slips.

Nothing in the alleged evidence claimed to be provided at Annexes D to D-2 gives ANY
“specific instructions and duties” for the Complainant to follow in the garage sales, especially
considering the following:

1. The Affidavit of the lone customer does not show any “specific instructions and
duties”;

2. The messages in D-1 refer to receipts being provided, and are undated, so could
have been sent for any reason and at any time. Nothing in those messages refers to
garage sales; and

3. The messages in D-2 actually refer to a garage sale that was held in June 2022, so
cannot constitute part of the “specific instructions and duties” the Respondent
claims was notified to the Complainant before the garage sales began in March
2022.

Only the screenshot of the messages to the Complainant provided after Paragraph 9.1
show any instructions and those instructions are:

Garage
- Schedule every 2 to 3 months
- 15 day period preparation
- Order popup tent
- Display signage sa front a week before to promote
- Price signages
- For employees, we need to record their purchases or
markahan nalang yung item
- Inventory dapat naka sort per price point
- Meal allowance (request budget kay Sheila)

Once again, there are no “specific instructions and duties” in this alleged “evidence”.
Once again, the Respondent is making spurious claims without a shred of actual evidence. The
same goes for the alleged “protocol flow” claimed in Paragraph 10 – 10.3, for which no evidence
has been provided, merely the lies of the Respondent.

The same can be said of the requirement for everyone to have a gate pass. In its alleged
“protocol flow”, the Respondent claims gate passes were required, and yet nothing of this was
ordered to the Complainant, and the only reason gate passes were ever provided was at her
initiative.

In fact, there is no company policy on gate passes, as the Respondent Company does not
actually have a Code of Conduct that has EVER been issued to the Complainant or any other
employees. In order to claim violations of a Code of Conduct, the Code of Conduct in question
must have been made known to the Complainant and she MUST have been provided with a copy
on engagement.

With no Code of Conduct ever having been made known to the Complainant, the
allegations of a policy that requires employees taking company property out of the premises to
have a gate pass are baseless and without proof. And once again, no such proof has been
provided in the Respondent’s evidence here. And any allegation without substantial evidence is
merely a baseless self-serving statement, or a lie.

At Paragrah 16, the Respondent claims that, on checking CCTV footage, it showed the
complainant handing products to a Lalamove driver. And yet, these blurred and unclear images
cannot in any way be construed as evidence. In order for them to be evidence of anything, they
should show recognizable features, and not just be based on unsubstantiated claims and lies.

In Paragraphs 14 to 16, Respondent also claims that the Security Guard on duty stated that the
Complainant “knew” about him being temporarily out of his post, stating:

“In addition, negating Complainant’s claims, the security guard

also said that he was only temporarily out of his post as he was
just helping another employee with his parking spot, which
Complainant knew about.”

One wonders how the security guard could possibly make such a claim, since the
Complainant did not see him at the time she was in the yard and outside the gate. And the reason
for this is clearly evident in the Respondent’s own images.

The security guard’s affidavit states that:

1. I am a security guard of
Respondent-Corporation/Straightforward.

2. I was the security guard in charge on 19 August 2022.

3. On or about 7:50am and 8:00am on 19 August 2022 Mary

Jane Sadiasa pulled-out items from the company premises.

4. Mary Jane Sadiasa shipped such items via Lalamove.

5. Mary Jane Sadiasa did not present any gate pass to me, as
required by the Straightforward.

6. During such time I was assisting an employee to park their

car and I know during such time Mary Jane Sadiasa knew
what I was doing.

7. I am executing this Witness-Affidavit in support of he

allegations of herein Respondent-Corporation, to attest to
the truth of all the foregoing.

This affidavit, by his own admission and under oath, is the “truth” of the foregoing. And
yet it is ripe with inconsistencies that even the Respondent should be able to see. The Security
Guard’s statement under oath is made up mostly of hearsay, and has no merit in this complaint.

In the affidavit, Item 3 is merely hearsay, as the guard could not possibly know at the
time of the incident that the Complainant had “pulled-out items from the company premises”. He
did not see the Complainant hand anything over to the Lalamove driver, as he was actually not in
view of the Complainant when she went out of the gate and spoke to the rider.

As he could not have seen her hand over any items or take them outside company
premises, his statement is a lie, based only on what Respondent Sze has told him to say. As can
be seen from the screenshot of the CCTV footage, he was not at his post at the time, and can be
seen in the screenshots to be assisting the employee parking his car, with a van in between him
and the gate/complainant.1

One also wonders how the guard can categorically state that the Complainant “shipped
such items via Lalamove”, as he states in Item 4 of his Affidavit, as the Lalamove rider had no
identifying logos, and, as has been shown previously, the guard did not see the Complainant or
the rider due to his assisting another employee to park his car and was blocked from sight of the
gate, the rider, and the Complainant at all times by the white van and a car.2

Item 5 of the Security Guard’s Affidavit is also a lie, as there is no company policy that
requires gate passes to be signed by the guard on duty.

Item 6 is also an outright lie, as it is an assumption to state: “and I know during such time
Respondent knew what I was doing”. How? He was not at his post and was on the roadside
blocked by a van from seeing the gate and the person in the images.

This whole affidavit is a lie, and has been fabricated by the guard for whatever reasons he
and the Respondents have decided. One feels that the Security Guard in question should be
charged with perjury, but it would have been done on the orders of Respondent Sze, who has
consistently lied and fabricated evidence during this case.

As for the claims of no entry in the Complainant’s logbook in Paragraph 17, this evidence
merely shows one page of a notebook that may or may not be the Complainant’s logbook. It
looks like a kid’s school notebook, and no validation or verification of this image is provided,
and it could be from any notebook the anywhere. It even contains notes on “clearance” and
contains multiple signatures of indeterminate origin. NO EVIDENCE is provided that the sale on
August 18 is unrecorded.

And the claim in Paragraph 18 of the Respondent scrap of paper claiming the
Complainant took out items worth over Ten Thousand Pesos is ridiculous to say the least. One
would at least think that a company that can be that specific about the amount allegedly taken
out, which according to the provided price lists were worth ONE HUNDRED PESOS (Php
100.00) each, they would actually provide some evidence of the value of the alleged items.

And here we come to one of the most blatant lies and ridiculous claims of the entire paper, and
one that shows that Respondent Sze will actually resort to forgery to try and make sure he is
right.

In Paragraph 18, the Respondent claims Ms. Buena “wrongfully issued a preventive
suspension order on Complainant and later that day, the HR Officer, without authority,
terminated Complainant.”

In Paragraphs 19 to 22, the Respondent makes some of its most spurious claims yet,
stating that:

19. Recognizing the HR Officer’s mistake, Respondent-Jerald Sze

issued an official statement clarifying that Complainant is still an
employee of the Company.

20. Immediately thereafter, Respondent-Corporation had the HR

Officer report the incident to the barangay where she was able to
obtain blotter report of the incident.

21. To rectify the errors of Respondent-Corporation’s HR Officer,

on August 24 2022, Complainant was issued a Notice to Explain,
1
A copy of "CCTV Images" is attached herein as Annex “A” and is made an integral part hereof.
2
Ibid;
 including a notice to an administrative hearing, directing her to
file an explanation within five (5) days from receipt, to which
Complainant complied.

22. On the same day, the HR Officer of the Respondent-Company

also issued a Letter of Correction to its employees, informing them
of the correct status of Complainant’s employment.

Under Paragraph 19, the Respondent claims it issued an official statement, but this did
not happen. The evidence shown by the Respondent is faked and forged. And falsification of
documents is a criminal offense.

This can best be seen by the fact that the message that the Respondent claims was sent by
the HR Officer, Jocelyn Buena, labeled in the Group Chat as “Xielyn”, is worded “almost”
correctly, except for a few changes, to wit:

“Xielyn 08/19/2022
Dear @everyone,

Please be informed that Mary Jane Sadiasa (MJ) is under

preventive suspension effective today August 19, 2022. Any
concerns / task / projects that MJ was involved with are now be
handled by Mr. Angelo Maniquis. All concerns regarding
logistics/warehouse must be coordinated only to Angelo and other
assigned personnel.

For your information and guidance.”3 [Emphasis supplied]

In the Respondent’s own evidence, from Annex J in its Position Paper, the Respondent
claims that the HR Officer said “UNDER PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION”. However, what Ms.
Buena ACTUALLY stated in that message was:

“Xielyn Today at 4:40 PM

Dear @everyone,

Please be informed that Mary Jane Sadiasa (MJ) is no longer part

of the company effective today August 19, 2022. Any concerns /
task / projects that MJ was involved with now be handled by Mr.
Angelo Maniquis. All concerns regarding logistics/warehouse must
be coordinated only to Angelo and other assigned personnel.

For your information and guidance.”4 [Emphasis supplied]

This was clearly shown in the dated and time-stamped screenshots of the conversation in
the Group Chat on 19 August 2022 that were taken by the Complainant on that same day and
provided in her Position Paper.

And yet, in the evidence of the Respondent, Sze claims to have “corrected” the statement
of Ms. Buena. As stated in the Position Paper, “19. Recognizing the HR Officer’s mistake,
Respondent-Jerald Sze issued an official statement clarifying that Complainant is still an
employee of the Company.”

According to the evidence of the Respondent at Annex J, there was no mistake. As can be
clearly seen, the statement of Ms. Buena as shown ONLY in this evidence says “is under
preventive suspension effective today”, which would NOT need correcting.
3
See Annex J of Respondent’s Position Paper
4
See Annex “4” of Complainant’s Position Paper
 Thus, it is obvious to anyone but Respondent Sze that this is a forgery. Ms. Buena did not
issue a statement saying the Complainant was on preventive suspension, she issued a statement
saying the Complainant was no longer part of the company.

And yet, Respondent Sze claims to have issued the statement rectifying the HR Officer’s
“mistake”, and clarifying the status of the Complainant, saying:

“Jerald 08/19/2022
Just a quick correction. Mary Jane Sadiasa is still connected, but
under preventive suspension for 30 days while investigation on her
case is ongoing. Hope this clarifies.”

And then the Respondent claims to have reported the incident to the barangay (Paragraph
20), and filed a blotter as proof of the incident happening. Attached to the Respondent’s Position
Paper as Annex K, the alleged blotter that the Respondent claims comes from the Barangay has
no identifying marks, no official stamp, no book, page, and line numbering, as is required in the
new Guidelines for blotter entries from the PNP.

As such, without any identifying marks, the alleged blotter entry is irrelevant and
pointless, especially since it cannot possibly exist in the first place.

Assuming, in arguendo, that the blotter entry is real, and that it was signed on behalf of
the Respondent-Company by Ms. Buena as its representative, there are multiple inconsistencies
here.

First and foremost, it was signed by Ms. Buena on behalf of “Straightforward Fashion
Merchandising”. However, on checking with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
there is no such entity in existence, so the alleged blotter has been filed by a non-existent
company. (attach copy of straightforward proof)

Straightforward Fashion Merchandising is merely a trading name of the Respondent

Corporation, and has no legal and juridical entity status of its own, therefore cannot be
represented by Ms. Buena.

The herein Complaint filed by the Complainant is against 365 Designs Retailing, Inc., a
corporation duly registered with the SEC, and for whom Ms. Buena works and is a
representative.

To quantify a fact, Ms. Buena has no ground for laying a blotter against the Complainant
personally, so it must be assumed that the blotter allegedly filed was done on behalf of the
Respondent Corporation, 365 Designs Retailing, Inc.

However, contrary to the beliefs of Respondent Sze, a Corporation has no right to file a
blotter with the barangay. Written into Republic Act No. 7160 were a number of rules, one of
which was clarified by the Supreme Court in its July 1993 circular, which stated:

In order that the laudable purpose of the law may not be subverted
and its effectiveness undermined by indiscriminate, improper
and/or premature issuance of certifications to file actions in court
by the Lupon or Pangkat Secretaries, attested by the
Lupon/Pangkat Chairmen, respectively, the following guidelines
are hereby issued for the information of trial court judges in cases
brought before them coming from the Barangays:

I. All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant to the

Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law (formerly P.D. 1508,
 repealed and now replaced by Secs. 399-422, Chapter VII, Title I,
Book III, and Sec. 515, Title I, Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of 1991), and prior recourse
thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in court or any
government offices, except in the following disputes:

4. Any complaint by or against corporations, partnership or

juridical entities, since only individuals shall be parties to
Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or
respondents (Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);

5. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of

different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units
adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their
differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon; 5
[Emphasis supplied]

As can clearly be seen, the alleged blotter, assuming in arguendo that it is real and not
another forgery by Respondent Sze, has no merit in any court, as a corporation is not eligible to
file such a report.

Once again the Respondent files evidence that is not evidence and which has absolutely
no bearing on the case at hand, and is in itself a falsification of public documents, as its very
existence is a lie.

In view of this evidence, the Complainant reserves the right to file cases of criminal libel
against the Respondent Corporation, Respondent Sze, and Ms. Buena at her discretion.

Continuing on, the Respondent claims, in Paragraph 22, that, on 24 August 2022, Ms.
Buena issued a letter of correction to its employees to rectify the mistake of Ms. Buena. And one
wonders what good does it do to issue a retraction of a statement made against an employee
terminating her employment and not provide the same to the employee that was duly and
illegally terminated.

“Dear Employees,

I am writing this letter to inform you that the notice I sent last
Friday, August 19, 2022 about Mary Jane Sadiasa employment
status contains some corrections that I need to rectify.

Mary Jane Sadiasa is still connected in this company but under

preventive suspension of 30 days while investigation on her case is
ongoing. My apologies for this mistake.

I will be more careful with generating/composing a letter like this

the next time.

Sincerely,

Jocelyn Buena
Human Resource

Jerald Adrian Sze

Managing Director”

5
Supreme Court Circular No. 14-93 July 15, 1993 https://lawphil.net/courts/supreme/ac/ac_14_1993.html
 Someone with a good eye here might notice a resemblance in the wording of this letter
and the wording of the alleged “correction” of Respondent Sze in his forged group chat message.

“Jerald 06/19/2022
Just a quick correction. Mary Jane Sadiasa is still connected, but
under preventive suspension for 30 days while investigation on
her case is ongoing. Hope this clarifies.”

“Mary Jane Sadiasa is still connected in this company but under

preventive suspension of 30 days while investigation on her case
is ongoing. My apologies for this mistake.”

One has to applaud the sheer audacity of the Respondent in his forgeries here. Not only
are they consistent in their content, being exact copies of the same sentences in most cases, but
their blatant quackery shines through like a cubic zirconia on Windolene.

Despite the intention of the Respondent to prove that the termination was retracted, there
can be no “attempt” at retraction where such is not actually made to the employee that was
terminated. And no retraction was ever made to the Complainant, nor any statement about the
termination of her employment by Ms. Buena, except in the Notice of Decision that the
Respondent issued to the Complainant on 13 September 2022. Therein, it stated:

“We were appraised about an incident on 19 August 2022, where

the Company Human Resource Officer mistakenly meted you with
a premature order of preventive suspension, and purportedly
announced your dismissal. Please be advised that said actions
were not authorized by the Management, and is not an official
corporate act. Hence, the act may not be taken nor attributed
against the corporation.”6

The aforementioned statement was made in the Notice of Decision, at which time the
Complainant was considered “dismissed” according to the aforementioned Notice, wherein it
stated:

“HENCE, WE HEREBY SERVE THIS UPON YOU, A

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.”
[Emphasis theirs]

One would consider the DISMISSAL NOTICE a little late to be rectifying what
Respondent Sze calls Ms. Buena’s “mistake” to the Complainant. Considering the fact that
Respondent Sze had weeks to make that retraction attempt, this seems to be too little too late,
and done as a mere afterthought, already knowing that this complaint had already been filed.

It is well established in terms of case law that an employee may only withdraw the notice
of resignation with the consent of the employer. In that context, the employer may only withdraw
the termination notice of an employee with the consent of that employee. Ergo, since the
employer did not attempt to withdraw the termination notice, and the employee did not agree to
any such withdrawal, the notice stands as given, and the Complainant was terminated at that
time.

The remainder of this part of the Position Paper posits how, according to the Respondent,
the Complainant allegedly committed fraud for hundreds of thousands of pesos, none of which
has any evidence whatsoever.

6
See Annex U of Respondent’s Position Paper
 There is no logbook presented as evidence, despite making repeated reference to such,
and the alleged gate passes claimed to have been used to collate the amount of sales of both
customers and Complainant are strangely missing from any evidence herein.

Respondent also claims the Complainant received G-cash payments that were not
submitted in full, and shows only screenshots of text messages from G-cash showing that the
Complainant sent money through G-cash to an unknown person.7

For all of these allegations of unremitted funds and G-cash payments and personal
purchases that were not paid for, not one single scrap of evidence has been shown. Not only are
these claims libelous, and litigious in nature, they are baseless and self-serving lies that have no
evidence because none exists.

The only real issue here is the illegal termination of the Complainant on 19 August 2022,
which was neither rescinded not unapproved.

III.
RESPONDENT’S ISSUES

I. COMPLAINANT WAS LEGALLY DISMISSED

While the Respondent may claim that the Complainant was legally dismissed with due
process, it is ignoring the fact that the Complainant was already dismissed on 19 August 2022 by
Jocelyn Buena, a fact that stands to this day, and was never “rescinded” as the Respondent
claims.

In fact, the ONLY time it was mentioned to the Complainant was on the Notice of
Decision that allegedly “dismissed” her dated 13 September 2022. At no other time did
Respondent Sze make any effort to rescind the termination or discuss it with the Complainant.
As it was never rescinded, and never agreed to have been rescinded, it remains as the real
termination of the Complainant, thus negating any claims of legal dismissal by Due Process.

Hence, all of the arguments regarding the legality of the dismissal in this section of the
Position Paper are moot.

II. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THERE HAS BEEN LAPSES IN

PROCEDURAL PROCESS, COMPLAINANT IS STILL DEEMED TO HAVE
BEEN LEGALLY DISMISSED DUE TO EXISTENCE OF JUST CAUSE FOR
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

“Any alleged announcement of termination or dismissal of Complainant on 19 August 2022

may not be attributed to the Respondents for being ultra vires acts of another employee.”

Ultra Vires Acts are usually legally defined as any acts that lie beyond the authority of a
CORPORATION to perform. Ultra vires acts fall outside the powers that are specifically listed
in a corporate charter or law. This can also refer to any action that is specifically prohibited by
the corporate charter.

The roots of the term are from a Latin phrase that means beyond the power. It is the
opposite of under proper authority—intra vires. You will also find the term in the legal
profession.

If individuals within a company make use of resources that go beyond the scope of their
legal purview, this can be called ultra vires. Such actions may include appropriating company
revenue or shares of the company that the individuals do not have legal ownership of.

7
See Paragraph 26 of Respondent’s Position Paper
 However, while they can be attributed to individuals as well, with several examples
available such as if a manager were to access the bank accounts of the company and use those
assets for personal needs, or an accountant or another financial officer within a company
transferred ownership of company shares they have no rights to control, the notification of the
termination of an employee by the HEAD OF HUMAN RESOURCES is not acting outside her
purview. Nor is she making use of resources that go beyond her scope.

Moreover, the Supreme Court case of RP v. Acoje Mining Company, Inc.8 defined the
difference between illegal acts and ultra vires acts. Therein, the Honorable Justices stated:

“An illegal act is void and cannot be validated while an ultra vires
act is merely voidable and can be enforced by performance,
ratification or estoppel, or on equitable grounds.”

If, as the Respondent claims, the acts of Ms. Buena on the afternoon of 19 August 2022
were indeed ultra vires acts, then they cannot be illegal acts. And as the termination of an
employee without due process is considered an illegal act, hence “illegal dismissal”, then it
cannot perforce be an ultra vires act.

This claim is baseless in its entirety, is not supported by evidence or case law, and has no
basis in legal arguments in labor disputes. This is just another attempt by the Respondent to
evade liability by lying, falsifying, and making baseless claims unsupported by evidence.

It is widely accepted in labor that the acts of individual employees with responsibility are
seen as the acts of the corporation itself. One example is where a manager with responsibility
terminates an employee without cause or due process.

The employee does not file a complaint against the manager personally, as the manager is
merely a representative and therefore an extension of the corporate identity. Thus, the
corporation is responsible for the acts of its employees.

Under the legal doctrine of Respondeat Superior, a corporation can be held vicariously
liable for the actions of its employees while they are employed. The doctrine of Respondeat
Superior means that the negligence of the employee is conclusively presumed the negligence of
the employer.

In the doctrine of vicarious liability, another person is made responsible for the acts or
omissions of another. The essence is the relationship between the person responsible and the one
who committed the act or omission. Under this doctrine, the employer is presumed negligent,
thus, the employer must prove that it had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision
of its employees in order to avoid liability.

This is well defined in the New Civil Code, under Articles 2176 and 2180, which state:

“Article 2176 – Whoever by act or omission causes damage to

another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.”

“Article 2180 – The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is

demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for
those of persons for whom one is responsible.

The respondent claims that it is “not within the HR Officer’s authority to terminate an
employee without following the twin-notice rule”. In point of fact, it is not within ANYONE’S
8
G.R. No. L-18062. February 28, 1963
scope of authority to terminate an employee without following the twin-notice rule. If it were,
the act would not be considered “illegal”.

No individual or corporation or juridical entity is imbued with the authority to break the
law. If they were, then the law would not actually be “broken”, as the person had the authority to
commit the act that previously broke the law.

Since nobody has that authority, to break the law with impunity, including the HR
Officer, Ms. Buena, there can be no ultra vires act.

Thus, it is justified that this Honorable Office find in favor of the Complainant, and find
that she was dismissed illegally and with bad faith.

IV.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby respectfully prayed that the foregoing

REPLY (To Respondent’s Position Paper dated 11 November 2022) be given due credence and
consideration and the reliefs prayed for in the Complaint and Complainants’ Position Paper be
granted.

Finally, Complainant respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just
and equitable under the premises.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Quezon City, Philippines, December ____, 2022.

Mary Jane G. Sadiasa

EXPLANATION
(re: Service by Registered Mail or Private Courier)

Complainant respectfully manifests that the REPLY (To Respondent’s Position Paper
dated 11 November 2022) and associated documents contained therein were served on the
Respondents by Private Courier in lieu of personal service due to distance and personal safety.

Copy furnished:

Jose Antonio Rafael G. Santos

Counsel for the Respondents
YEBRA DE JESUS LOON LAW OFFICES
Penthouse, ENZO Building, 399 Sen. Gil J. Puyat Avenue
Makati City, 1200 Metro Manila
 VERIFICATION

I, Mary Jane G. Sadiasa, Filipino, of legal age, and with post office address at #1 Dahlia
Street, De Castro Subd., Sta. Llucia, Pasig City, after having duly sworn to in accordance with
law, do hereby depose and state:

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

2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition and have read all
the allegations therein;

3. The allegations therein are true and correct, based on personal knowledge or authentic
documents;

4. The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the
cost of litigation;

5. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified,
will likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this _____ day of

December, 2022 in ______________________.

___________
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this _____ day of December, 2022 in

______________, with _________________ (ID) No. ____________________, valid until
_____________, and I hereby certify that I personally examined the affiant herein and that I am
fully satisfied that she voluntarily executed the foregoing petition and she understood all the
allegations herein.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL at the place and date first written above.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No. ____

Page No. ____
Book No. ____
Series of 2022.
 ANNEX “A”

Location of Security Guard: