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. A Decision should be rendered in favor of complainant solely based

on the pleadings that he filed. 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 before filing the same before the Honorable Branch.

2. Section 3 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended, clearly

provides that “[t]he party filing a pleading shall serve the opposing parties with
a copy and its supporting documents. No pleading shall be considered without
proof of service to the opposing parties.”

3. The NLRC Rules of Procedure require that the opposing party to

serve a copy of the pleading to the opposing party as a prerequisite to filing the
same. The service may be done either personally or by registered mail.
Respondents failed to perform this essential requisite to filing a Position Paper.

4. 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
NLRC Rules of Procedure.

5. In fact, respondents’ failure to serve a copy of the Position Paper

appears to be have been intentionally done. This is shown by the fact that
respondents’ Position Paper provided a “CC” addressed to complainant in its

1
last page. As such, respondents knew that they needed to serve a copy of the
Position Paper to herein complainant before filing the same with the Honorable
Branch but opted not to in order to deny complainant the right to timely refute
the allegations contained therein.

6. Respondents had two (2) methods of serving their Position Paper.

One is through personal service and the other is through registered mail. If
respondents would have a hard time personally serving the same at the time
they filed their Position Paper, then they could have at least mailed it to herein
complainant.

7. This is an uncurable defect that should not escape the attention of

this Honorable Branch. While technical rules of procedure are not binding before
the NLRC, still, the basic elements of due process should still be in effect in its
proceedings. By not serving a copy of their Position Paper to herein complainant,
the latter was deprived of the right to timely refute the allegations therein.

8. Thus, the Position Paper of the respondents should be considered as

not filed. Without a Position Paper from respondents, a Decision should be
rendered in favor of complainant based on the pleadings he filed.

9. Nevertheless, respondent’s Position Paper cannot disprove the fact

that they constructively dismiss complainant.

10. Complainant denies the allegations made by respondents in their

Position Paper.

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

Larrosa, Edgardo Mangana, Gerome Magculang, Fitz Gerald Jacinto, Joseph
Soberano, Aruel Jay I. Larrosa, Joyce Ann Valaquio, Edna Cuntapay and Arturo
Layag should not be given any probative value.

12. The said Sinumpaang Salaysays were 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 the case at bar,
the Sinumpaany Salaysays by Ruel Larrosa, Eddie Bert Larrosa, Edgardo
Mangana, Gerome Magculang, Fitz Gerald Jacinto, Joseph Soberano, Aruel Jay I.
Larrosa, Joyce Ann Valaquio, Edna Cuntapay and Arturo Layag 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.

13. The alleged infractions by complainant that were detailed in these

Sinumpaang Salaysays are contrary to logic, normal reason and usual experience.
In these testimonies, complainant is being viewed as a bad, ineffective and lazy

2
worker from the start of his employment. And that the reason why he remained
in employment was because respondents were merciful, compassionate and
giving. This picture being painted by those testimonies are extraordinary and
unbelievable.

14. In a competitive business environment such as Banawe Street, which

this Honorable Branch is presumed to be accustomed to since the said place
similarly houses the NLRC, businesses like respondents’ business cannot afford
having an ineffective and lazy worker. If they have such a worker, they risk
losing customers, and eventually, having an unprofitable business. Just one
mistake from such a worker and, certainly, a customer would immediately walk
away to the neighboring car shops knowing that other car shops nearby can
immediately tend to his or her needs. Worse, that said customer can spread his
or her experiences with the shop that had a lazy and ineffective worker and,
thus, the latter would have a bad reputation that would cause it to lose more
customers.

15. Considering this, it is entirely unbelievable that respondents would

continue to hire an ineffective and lazy employee, as what they are trying to
paint complainant is, while trying to survive in a competitive business
environment.

16. If indeed complainant was lazy, undesirable and ineffective,

respondents would have dismissed him in the first instant.

17. Rather, what’s more believable is that there is a bad working

environment in respondents’ business which is a result of the extremely
competitive business around Banawe St. Considering this bad working
environment, complainant was enticed to accept respondent Ruel Larrosa’s offer
of separation pay in exchange for signing a pre-made resignation letter. That
after this acceptance, 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.

18. Moreover, the Memos provided showing the alleged infractions of

complainant are untrue. The circumstances provided in these Memos never
happened. Complainant was a model employee from the start of his
employment. More importantly, complainant was never furnished these Memos
nor did he sign the same. In fact, the same possess forged signatures of
complainant. The true signature of complainant is hereby attached as Annex
“A”. Comparing this to the signatures in the memos, the latter would clearly be
seen as a bad attempt of forgery because the signatures therein is entirely of a
different shape and stroke.

19. The pictures showing that complainant was sleeping cannot be

given any probative value. Normally, workers are allowed rest time during
lunch hours. Mechanics are known to take a nap during these hours. The pictures
provided do not conclusively show that these were taken during working hours.
Hence, it cannot be used as basis that complainant was indeed sleeping during

3
working hours. In fact, complainant cannot remember when these pictures were
taken.

20. Further, complainant attests that he never dosed off during working
hours. He was constantly performing his duties during working hours. And to
finish his work, he would often incur overtime.

21. As regards complainant’s alleged request for a Certificate of

Employment, complainant never requested the issuance of the same. In fact, the
said document does not bear any signature on the part of complainant. If there
was indeed a request for such, then why did respondent not present such request
instead of the Certificate of Employment? It only shows that this false allegation
is a deliberate attempt by respondents to mislead the Honorable Branch from
considering the instant case as a constructive dismissal.

22. Even assuming that complainant requested such Certificate of

Employment, the same does not disprove complainant’s claim of constructive
dismissal. In the case at bar, complainant was misled by respondents from
signing a pre-made resignation letter on the basis of a falsely promised payment
of separation pay. Hence, even assuming that complainant requested such
Certificate of Employment, he requested it under the premise that he will already
look for work once he receives the separation pay he was promised with. As the
payment of the separation pay never materialized due to respondents reneging
on their promise, the purpose for requesting the Certificate of Employment
similarly did not take effect.

23. 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 salary (i.e., his minimum wage), commission and holiday pay).

24. As complainant was constructively dismissed, he should be

awarded separation pay and backwages. Moreover, the manner by which
respondents tricked complainant into signing a pre-made resignation letter and
subsequently reneging on their promise of paying complainant his separation
pay is morally perverse. Hence, complainant should be awarded moral and
exemplary damages.

25. 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 an Order be issued

EXPUNGING respondents’ Position Paper off the records of this case, and a

4
JUDGMENT BE RENDERED BASED ON THE PLEADINGS FILED BY
COMPLAINANT, and accordingly FIND complainant to have been
constructively dismissed, and ORDER 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
8. Attorney’s fees.

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

Quezon City, 23 June 2022.

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 SUPPLEMENTAL 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.