REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSON
Regional Arbitration Branch No. III
City of San Fernando. Pampanga
***

LIBRADO P. CASAYURAN,
Complainant-Appellee,

-versus-
NLRC CASE NO. RAB-III-O9-00014-22

EOB SECURITY AGENCY

AND EDNA OLLASO-BALLA
in her capacity as the Owner,
Respondents-Appellant,
x------------------------------------------x

MEMOMANDUM ON APPEAL

RESPONDENT, to this Honorable Office, by way of APPEAL, most respectfully

states:

INTRODUCTION

The subject matter of this Memorandum on Appeal is the DECISION,dated March

31, 2023 of the Executive Labor Arbiter Roderick Q. Almeyda FINDING the complainant
Librado P. Casayuran allegedly ILLEGALLY DISMISSED by respondent -appealant, the
duplicate original copy of which is attached as Annex“A” hereof, for the record.

TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL

The herein Appellant EOB Security Agency thru its Attoney-in-Fact, the
Training/Operations Manager Gilbert B. Concepcion received the questioned Decision,
dated March 31, 2023 on May 24, 2023, hence this tenth day to file this Memorandum on
Appeal shall expire on June 4, 2023 and that June 3 is Saturday, it shall be the next
business day June 5, 2023, as per Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure.

ADOPTION CLAUSE

For the record and for the convenience, the herein appellant hereby adopts into this
Memorandum of Appeal, by incorporation and reference, all the allegations and
arguments stated in --- as well as all supporting documents annexed to --- (a)his
POSITION PAPER filed with the Arbiter a quo on October 26, 2022 and (b) his REPLY P
filed with the same Arbiter on November 19, 2022.

ISSUES

The herein appellant respectfully submits that the Labor Arbiter a quo abused his
discretion and committed serious errors of facts and law which, if not corrected, would
cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant in finding the appellant had:

a)ILLEGALLY DISMISSED THE COMPLAINANT/APPELLEE

b)ORDERING THE APPEALLANT TO PAY THE APPELLEE THE SEPARATION PAY,

FULL BACK WAGES, UNPAID SALARIES, 13TH MONTH PAY, SERVICE INCENTIVE
LEAVE PAY AND ATTORNEY'S FEES IN A TOTAL AMOUNT OF PHP400,126.10

DISCUSSION

1. The herein appellant did not illegally dismissed the complainant-appelee

a. It is provided in the Decision of the Labor Arbiter a quo, dated March 31, 2023, to wit:

“ In this case, after a judicious evaluation of the parties' arguments and evidence
presented, this Office finds complainant to have sufficiently established the fact of
his dismissal, Contrary to the denial made by respondent EOB, it was clear that the
complainant was removed from the position at One Mall San Ildefonso Bulacan for
no valid reason. The purported failure of the complainant to comply with the
submission of his 201 files was clearly shown to have been required by Graceland
Plaza Marikina and not One Mall San Ildefonso Bulacan where the complainant
was actually assigned, The memorandum dated July 9, 2022 which respondent
EOB itself submitted clearly proved the complainants position. It baffles the mind
of this Office on why respondent EOB has been insisting that it was One Mall San
Ildefonso that required the 201 files when it was actually Graceland Plaza
Marikina.”

The Honorable Labor Arbiter was not aware that Graceland Plaza Marikina and One Mall
San Ildefonso Bulacan are owned by a single company known as RMR. The
communication issued by RMR bears the letterhead of Graceland Plaza Marikina because
the Security/Operations Manager is based at Graceland Plaza Marikina.

The respondent-appellant would like to reiterate to this Honorable body that the
complaiant-appellee was not dismissed. Some of the office staff were present during the
alleged incident and what he stated as mentioned in the decision of the Honorable
Executive Labor Arbiter in page 3 paragraph 3...”Basta sinabi kong tanggal ka na!....Kahit
kay Duterte ka pa magreklamo wla ka nang magagawa.” is a product of his fertile
imagination. It is noteworthy to mention that in the case of TRI-C General Services v.
Nolasco Matuto (GR No. 194686 23 September 2015)

“However, it is likewise incumbent upon the employees that they should first
establish by competent evidence that fact of their dismissal from
employment. As an allegation is not evidence, it is elementary that a party
alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence. It
is also stressed that the evidence to prove the fact of dismissal must be clear,
positive and convincing.” (Emphasis mine)

in the case at bar, the complainant failed to establish what he is claiming. After receiving

his salary last July 2022, he packed his things (he stayed in the second floor of the office

for free) and returned to Tarlac. He was not dismissed by respondent because of friendly

gestures being the same Ilokano speaking people. There was no illegal dismissal to speak

of. He was not removed from work but merely transferred to report in the office.

2. The complainant-appellee is not entitled to any Separation Pay, Full Back wages,
Unpaid Salaries, 13th Month Pay Service Incentive Leave Pay and even the Attorneys Fee
as stated in the decision of the Honorable Executive Labor Arbiter ordering the respondent
to pay Four Hundred Thousand One hundred Twenty Six Pesos.

There was no unpaid wages to speak of because the last unpaid salary of the Complainant
was made July 16, 2022. The other unpaid wages he was claiming October-November
2920 and September 19 to December 21, 2021 is baseless because based on records
kept by EOB Security Agency, the claim of Librado Casayuran, the complainant was
already paid on July 16, 2022 even if he committed several violation of company rules
such as absence without leave, failure to submit updated 201 files and habitual
absentism.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed, that the appealed DECISION, dated

March 31, 2023, be REVERSED AND SET ASIDE, and ,declaring the Complainant NOT
illegally dismissed by the Respondents and setting aside the monetary claims.
 
The sum of Php 500,000 as actual, moral and exemplary damages which may be
awarded to the Respondent-Appealant .Respondent Complainant prays for other reliefs to
which they may be entitled in law, and inequity.

San Fernando City, Pampanga June 5, 2023.

GILBERT B. CONCEPCION
Affiant

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION
FOR NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, GILBERT B. CONCEPCION, of legal age, married, Filipino and a resident of c/o EOB
Security Agency, #201-A dollar St., Phase 8, North Fairview, Quezon City, after having
been duly sworn to in accordance with law do hereby depose and state;

• That I am the Atty.-in-Fact of the Respondent/s (See Special Power of Attorney

Annex “1”) in this Labor Complaint filed by LIBRADO CASAYURAN,, under the
NLRC CASE NO. RAB-III-09-00014-22;
• That I am responsible in the preparation of this Position Paper and that I have read
and understood the foregoing contents of the said pleadings;

• That I have not filed any similar pleadings or complaint against the said
respondents, to any tribunals such as in the municipal trial courts, regional trial
courts, court of appeals or to any quasi-tribunal. That if and when I should have
discovered any such similar case pending in any court I will immediately inform this
Honorable Board within a period of five (5) days from receipt hereof;

• That I am executing this affidavit base on my own knowledge and base on authentic
documents and for all other legal intents and purposes it may serve.

AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.

GILBERT B. CONCEPCION
Affiant
 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this __ day of ______________, 2023
at ______________________________ , after herein affiant personally exhibited to me
her valid ID to be the same person who executed the foregoing.

Notary Public

Doc. No. _____;

Page no. _____;
Book No. ____ ;
Series of 2023.