Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

DENMARK GOMEZ TORIO

Complainant,

-versus- NLRC-NCR CASE No. 02-00393-22

(Before Labor Arbiter Emma Liza M.
Palomata-Calma)

FULL GEAR AUTO PARTS &

SERVICES CORP. / RUEL
LARROSA,
Respondents,
x--------------------------------------------x

SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY
(FOR THE COMPLAINANT)

Complainant, by counsel, before this Honorable Branch, most respectfully

submits his reply and hereby allege:

1. First and foremost, a Decision should be rendered based on the

pleadings filed by complainant. This is because respondents are deemed not to
have filed their Position Paper since they did not serve a copy of the same to
herein complainant or his counsel before filing the same before the Honorable
Branch.

2. As admitted by respondent Larrosa in his Paliwanag, he did not

serve a copy of the Position Paper to herein complainant or his counsel when he
filed their Position Paper on 22 April 2022. This occurred even though
respondents had a counsel, Atty. Arthur C. Coroza, who is well-versed with the
legal technicalities is an uncurable defect that should not escape this

3. Complainant denies the allegations made by respondents.

4. Particularly, the Sinumpaang Salaysays by Ruel Larrosa, Eddie Bert

Larrosa, Arturo Layag, Roldan Maano, Joyce Ann Valaquio and Edna Cuntapay
should not be given any probative value.

5. First and foremost, the said Sinumpaang Salaysay was notarized by

the same counsel representing respondents, Atty. Arthur C. Coroza. Under Rule
IV, Section 3 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public is
disqualified from performing a notarial act if he or she will receive, as a direct or
indirect result, any advantage from the document he or she will be notarizing. In

1
the case at bar, the Sinumpaany Salaysays by Ruel Larrosa, Eddie Bert Larrosa,
Arturo Layag, Roldan Maano, Joyce Ann Valaquio and Edna Cuntapay were
made to strengthen the case of respondents, whom are being represented by
Atty. Coroza. In other words, Atty. Coroza caused an advantage of his client’s
cause, and in effect, his cause, when he notarized the aforesaid Sinumpaang
Salaysays. Thus, the notarial act which Atty. Coroza made should be nullified
and accordingly, the Salaysays of the aforesaid persons should be considered a
mere scrap of paper.

6. More importantly, the statements made in the Sinumpaang

Salaysays are false. Ruel Larrosa was present in Manila on 19 November 2021
and he was the one who offered separation pay to herein complainant, and not
Ms. Edna Cuntapay. The Travel Coordination Permit nor the pictures of the
construction presented by respondents do not prove that respondent Ruel
Larrosa was indeed outside of Manila on 19 November 2021. The Travel
Coordination Permit does not require individual respondent to be back within
Marinduque by 19 November 2021 but the Permit simply requires that
individual respondent will undergo RT-PCR test if he returns to Marinduque
after three (3) days of being outside the province. It does not show, however, that
he was outside of Manila on 19 November 2021.

7. Moreover, contrary to the testimony of the aforesaid persons,

complainant was physically and verbally abused by individual respondent Ruel
Larrosa. The lack of any photographs to that effect does not discount this positive
declaration by complainant.

8. In addition, it was not complainant who executed the resignation

letter. It was pre-made by individual respondent Ruel Larrosa and complainant
simply signed the same as he was offered separation pay in exchange for signing
the said document.

9. What really happened, rather, is that, on 19 November 2021,

respondent Ruel Larrosa offered complainant separation pay in exchange for
signing a pre-made resignation letter. In light of complainant’s atrocious
working environment as a result of respondents’ acts, he accepted such offer.
However, respondents reneged on the agreement. Consequently, due to the clear
act of discrimination and disdain by respondents against complainant, the latter
was constructively dismissed from of his employment.

10. To answer respondents’ arguments, complainant continued his

employment with respondents despite the physical and verbal abuses he often
suffered against them because he had a family to support. A family man would
do anything to feed his family. He has no choice but to bear any suffering he
needs to undergo just to provide for his family’s needs.

11. Likewise, complainant was a model employee from the start. He

never committed any of the alleged infractions being accused him by
respondents. The Kasunduan being presented against complainant (wherein he
allegedly admitted that he had a fistfight with a co-employee) contains false
assertions. In fact, it contains a forged signature of complainant, a terrible

2
attempt to copy complainant’s signature. Attached as Annex “A” of this Reply is
complainant’s Identification Card with signature. As shown therein, the
signature in the Kasunduan is a terribly copy, a bad forgery, of complainant’s
signature. The truth is complainant never engaged in any fistfights with another
person.

12. With respect to complainant’s money claims, he was never paid the
same by complainants. The proofs of payment (i.e., payslips) being presented by
respondents were never received by complainant nor did he ever sign the same
or any similar document. Respondents do not issue payslips for every pay day.
The signatures contained in said payslips are not complainant’s. It does not even
resemble complainant’s signature. The signatures therein are a terribly forgery of
complainant’s signature. Hence, the said proofs of payment cannot be used to
prove that complainant was indeed paid his money claims (including but not
limited to 13th month pay and his minimum wage).

13. Further, complainant had no hand in the preparation and execution

of the alleged Time Cards showing that he did not work for seven days straight.
In the course of his employment with respondents, employees were not required
to punch in Time Cards. Hence, complainant was surprised when respondents
offered in evidence Time Cards which he has never seen before. In fact, the Time
Cards do not even contain complainant’s full name, address, position and worse,
it does not contain his signature which shows that the said Time Card is indeed
his.

14. The truth is complainant was never given any rest day and was
required to work seven (7) days a week including holidays. Regardless of this
circumstance, respondents never paid complainant rest day premium, holiday
pay and holiday pay premium.

15. As complainant was constructively dismissed, he should be

awarded moral and exemplary damages.

16. Lastly, as complainant was forced to hire the undersigned to defend

his rights as a laborer, he should be awarded attorney’s fees.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered

FINDING complainant to have been constructively dismissed, and ORDERING
respondents to pay, jointly and severally, complainant separation pay and
backwages from 19 November 2021, and the following money claims:

1. Salary differentials;
2. Holiday pay;
3. Holiday pay premium;
4. 13th Month Pay;
5. Rest day premium;
6. SIL;
7. Moral and exemplary damages; and

3
 8. Attorney’s fees.

Other order and relief, just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, 23 May 2022.

FATIMA FAYE E. CORDOVA

Counsel for Complainant
No. 6 Colonel Martinez Street, West Avenue,
Quezon City
PTR No. A-5401410; 01/10/2022; Taguig City
IBP No. 174335; 01/03/2022; Makati City
Roll No. 70265
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0004837; 11/26/21

Copy furnished:

ARTHUR C. COROZA
Counsel for the Respondents
Rm. 302 3rd Floor Holy Cross Savings & Credit Cooperative Bldg.,
Maysan Rd., Valenzuela City

EXPLANATION FOR SERVICE THROUGH REGISTERED MAIL

The foregoing REPLY (FOR THE COMPLAINANT) is served by
registered mail because it is impracticable to serve the same by personal service
due to time constraints and by reason of the lack of messengers by the
undersigned counsel who can effect personal service/filing.