National Labor Relations Commission: Manufacturing Corporation vs. Alcon and Papa, G.R. No. 194884, October 22, 2014)
National Labor Relations Commission: Manufacturing Corporation vs. Alcon and Papa, G.R. No. 194884, October 22, 2014)
Complainant,
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------x
PREFATORY STATEMENT
In protecting the rights of the workers, the law, however, does not authorize the
oppression or self-destruction of the employer. The constitutional commitment to the
policy of social justice cannot be understood to mean that every labor dispute shall
automatically be decided in favor of labor. The constitutional and legal protection
equally recognize the employer’s right and prerogative to manage its operation
according to reasonable standards and norms of fair play. (Imasen Philippine
Manufacturing Corporation vs. Alcon and Papa, G.R. No. 194884, October 22,
2014)
1|Page
THE CASE
THE PARTIES
2|Page
complainant started his work on April 15, 2000, then as shop man at the
time of filing of complaint with a monthly salary of P10,000.00.
ISSUES
I.
II.
DISCUSSION/ARGUMENTS
3|Page
“(A) An employee may terminate without just cause the employee-
employer relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at
least one (1) month in advance. The employer upon whom no such
notice was served may hold the employee liable for damages.
SEPARATION PAY
It should be noted that employees who voluntarily resign from work are not
entitled to separation pay. Philippine laws only grant separation pay to those who were
dismissed from service not due to their own fault or negligence but for reasons that are
beyond their control, i.e. business closure, cessation of operation, retrenchment
(reduction of costs) to prevent losses, etc. Thus, as stated in the case ofHanford
Philippines, Incorporated And Victor Te, vs. Shirley Joseph,G.R. No. 158251 March
31, 2005)
“It is well to note that there is no provision in the Labor Code which grants
separation pay to employees who voluntarily resign. Under the Code, separation pay
may be awarded only in cases when the termination of employment is due to: (a)
installation of labor saving devices, (b) redundancy, (c) retrenchment, (d) closing or
cessation of business operations, (e) disease of an employee and his continued
employment is prejudicial to himself or his co-employees, or (f) when an employee is
illegally dismissed but
reinstatement is no longer feasible.”
Again, as herein complainant voluntarily resigned from his work, the award of
separation pay cannot be justified.
Further, as held also in the case of Globe Telecom, Inc. vs. Florendo-Flores,
390 SCRA 201, an award of moral damages is not proper where the dismissal is not
shown to be attended by bad faith, or oppressive to labor, or done in a manner
contrary to morals, good custom or public policy.
5|Page
Latly, Article 2229 of the Civil Code states that "exemplary or corrective
damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good It thus
presupposes that an act violative of the law has been committed.
In the present case, there is no showing that respondents acted with bad faith or
in violation of the law. There is neither a violation of complainants' rights that need to
be vindicated. There is therefore no basis for an award of moral or exemplary
damages. Respondents humbly submit that there is no cause for complainant to be
entitled to any form of damages as the former clearly proved that they never
committed act/s violative of the law.
Let it be on record that the respondents are able and willing to pay complainant
whatever standing obligations that may be due to him, however, although it is indeed
that the burden of proving payment as regards an employee's money claims is with the
employer, the complainant must first specify and present his basis for entitlement to
these claims. For instance, what period did he not receive his overtime pay and
holiday pay? When was he not paid his 1 3th month pay?
As held in the case of Lagatic vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 721004, January 28,
7998:
"Petitioner failed to show his entitlement to overtime and rest day pay
due to the lack of sufficient evidence as to the number of days and hours
when he rendered overtime and rest day work. Entitlement to overtime
pay must first be established by proof that said overtime work was
actually performed, before an employee may avail of said benefit. To
support his allegations, petitioner submitted in evidence minutes of
meetings wherein he was assigned to work on weekend and holidays at
Cityland's housing projects. Suffice it to say that said minutes do not
prove that petitioner actually worked on said dates. It is a basic rule in
evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegations. This
petitioner failed to do so."
ATTORNEY’S FEES
The prayer for attorney's fees must also fail. As held in the case of Lopez vs. NLRC,
et al., G.R. No. 124548, October 8, 7998, the Supreme Court held that:
6|Page
"In employment termination cases attorney's fees are not recoverable
where there is no sufficient showing of bad faith on the part or private
respondent [employer]. Under Art. 2208 (2) of the New Civil Code, the
award thereof is justified if the claimant is compelled to litigate with
third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an
unjustified act of the party against whom it is sought." (Emphasis ours)
In the case at bar, the unjustified act is clearly wanting since there is clearly no illegal
dismissal.
PRAYER
Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed for.
Quezon City for the City of San Fernando, Pampanga, 3rd September 2020.
7|Page
Republic of the Philippines
Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. III
City of San Fernando, Pampanga
***
MR. E
Complainant,
ABC
CORPORATION,
MR. A-President,
and MR. C- HR
Head
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------x
RESPONDENT’S REJOINDER
Respondents, through the undersigned counsel, unto the Honorable Office,
respectfully submit the following comments by way of Rejoinder to the
Complainant’s Reply, as follows:
2.It is worth noting that the respondents also deny the allegation
contained in paragraphs 15 and16 that state that he was not allowed to
return and report for work and that he did not resign but was instead
constructively dismissed.
As held also in the same case of Luis S. Doble, Jr. Vs. Abb,
Inc./Nitin Desai, what is important for resignation to be deemed
voluntary is that the employee's intent to relinquish must concur with the
overt act of relinquishment.
9|Page
Thus, since from the time of the submission of his resignation
letter, complainant never reported for work and could no longer be
located, the same should be considered as his voluntary act. Thus,
respondents respectfully move for the outright dismissal of complainant's
claim of any constructive dismissal.
3. At the outset, respondents would like to point out that a simple perusal of
herein complainant’s pro-forma complaint shows that his causes of action are: Illegal
Dismissal (Constructive), Non-payment of 13th Month Pay, Non-payment of
Separation Pay and Moral and Exemplary Damages; and Attorney’s Fee; Non-
payment of Holiday and Rest Day,Full Back Wages and Money claims.
However, in his position paper, the claims raised are only limited to an
allegation of a constructive dismissal, and money claims of moral and exemplary
damages and attorney’s fees.
As provided in the case of Dee Jay's Inn and Cafe And/Or Melinda
FerrarisV. Ma. LorinaRañeses, G.R. No. 191825, October 05, 2016,
10 | P a g e
[T]he complaint is not the only document from which the
complainant's cause of action is determined in a labor case. Any cause
of action that may not have been included in the complaint or position
paper, can no longer be alleged after the position paper is submitted by
the parties. In other words, the filing of the position paper is the
operative act which forecloses the raising of other matters
constitutive of the cause of action. This necessarily implies that the
cause of action is finally ascertained only after both the complaint
and position paper are properly evaluated.
11 | P a g e
the Code, separation pay may be awarded only in cases when the
termination of employment is due to: (a) installation of labor saving
devices, (b) redundancy, (c) retrenchment, (d) closing or cessation of
business operations, (e) disease of an employee and his continued
employment is prejudicial to himself or his co-employees, or (f) when an
employee is illegally dismissed but
reinstatement is no longer feasible.”
5.As for his money claims pertaining to moral and exemplary damages, the
respondents maintain its position that moral damages are only recoverable when the
dismissal of an employee is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act
oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs or
public policy. Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are recoverable when the
dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner. (Jonald O.
Torreda vs. Investment and Capital Corporation Of The Philippines,G.R. No.
229881, September 05, 2018)
That, as also held in the case of Globe Telecom, Inc. vs. Florendo-Flores, 390
SCRA 201, an award of moral damages is not proper where the dismissal is not shown
to be attended by bad faith, or oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to
morals, good custom or public policy.
Thus, for failure to prove with substantial evidence that his alleged constructive
dismissal was attended with bad faith, or oppression to labor, or was done in any
manner contrary to morals, good custom or public policy, respondents respectfully
move for the outright dismissal of complainant's claim not only of moral but also of
exemplary damages.
12 | P a g e
Lastly, contrary to the complainant’s contention,
he is not entitled to attorney’s fees.
"It may not be amiss to stress that laws which have for their object the
preservation and maintenance of social justice are not only meant to
favor the poor and underprivileged. They apply with equal force to those
who, notwithstanding their more comfortable position in life, are
equally deserving of protection from the courts. Social justice is not a
license to trample on the rights of the rich in the guise of defending the
poor, where no act of injustice or abuse is being committed against
them."
PRAYER
Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed for.
PAYROLL
12345
6
NAME : Mr. E PA
YROLL #:
ABC Corporation
J S Pa
OB hopman y:
P
14,046.00
14 | P a g e
March 1, 2005 – March 1,
2006 P168,552
15 | P a g e
March 1, 2018 – March 1, P168,5
2019 52
EXHIBIT B
16 | P a g e
June 11, 2020
ABC CORPORATION,
Dear Sir/Madam,
Sumasainyo,
Mr. E.
17 | P a g e