Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Edted Final Handyleo VS Andaya
Edted Final Handyleo VS Andaya
-versus - NLRC-NCR-0303923-18
[Hon. LA MARCIAL GALAHAD T. MAKASIAR]
HANDYLEO CONSTRUCTION /
LEOPOLDO FLORENTINO
Respondents,
x------------------------------------------ x
PREFATORY STATEMENT
“The law in protecting the rights of the laborers authorizes
neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. Justice
is to be denied to none. (Atlas Fertilizer Corporation vs. NLRC,
273 SCRA 549[1]
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
3. This is a complaint for illegal dismissal- Actual; nonpayment-
overtime pay, holiday pay and premium, rest day pay and premium, service
incentive leave, 13th month pay, separation pay, and night shift differentials;
regularization; moral and exemplary damages; attorney’s fees; and full back
wages and money claims.
1
Annex “A”: Billing and Permit
2
Annex “B”: DTI Certification
3
Annexes “C”, “D”, and “E” and “F”: Four Separate Project Employment Contracts
4
Annex “G”- Series: Complainant’s Pay Slips
2
6. At the onset of project employment, respondents gave the
complainant a copy of the Company Rules and Regulations 5 and explained to
him the meaning and impact of each rule to the status of his employment.,
ISSUES
i.
Whether or not complainant is a project employee
of the respondents or not and whether he is
entitled to regular employment;
ii.
5
Annex “H” - Company Rules and Regulations
3
Whether or not complainant was illegally dismissed and
therefore entitled to his monetary claims;
iii.
14. The issues are inter-related such that the discussions and arguments
are presented in an integrated manner.
17. The Supreme Court had the occasion to rule once again on the
issue of project employment in MA. CHARITO C. GADIA, ET. AL. vs.
SYKES ASIA , ET. AL. G.R No. 209499, January 28, 2015, citing among
other cases, to wit:
19. Secondly, the duration and scope of the work was specified at the
time Andaya was engaged for the project. And this was not done once. Every
time a new project contract of employment is executed, specifications were
included.
20. The fact that the tasks of the complainant is not a regular activity,
and the fact that he was hired to do a specific job over a specific period, did
not entitle him to regularization.
5
22. Complainant did not include in his causes of action
underpayment of wages. The fact is that complainant was paid beyond the
regional minimum wage of Php 386 per day set for non-agriculture workers
in Cavite City7.
25. As to the 13th month pay, respondents claim that they paid the
mandatory monetary benefits. Submitted herewith are proofs of payments
for the 13th month pay in years 2016 8, 2017 9, and 2018 10.
27. In the instant case, there was no illegal dismissal. Under the law,
he is not entitled to separation benefits. On the contrary and in fact, the
complainant resigned. He was not dismissed. Submitted hereto is his
resignation letter11 which also included a waiver, release and quitclaim.
7
Annex “J”: Minimum Wage Rates by Sector
8
Annex “K”: 13th Month Pay for 2016
9
Annex “L”: 13th Month Pay for 2017
10
Annex “M”: 13th Month Pay for 2018
11
Annex “N”: Waiver, Release and Quitclaim with Resignation.
6
COMPLAINANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO MORAL
AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING
ATTORNEYS FEES AND OTHER MONEY
CLAIMS
29. Respondent did not commit acts that constitute bad faith.
Complainant could not show acts that were tainted with bad faith, offensive
to labor and done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public
policies. Thus, complainant is not entitled to moral damages.
30. Also, in Kierulf, vs. Court of Appeals, GR Nos. 99301 and 99343,
March 13, 1997, the Supreme Court held that moral damages are meant to
compensate the claimant for any physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
social humiliation and similar injuries unjustly caused. However, this ruling
could not apply in the instant case because not one of the elements
propounded therewith is present.
32. Considering the lack of evidence therefore, the claim for damages
is just a mere allegation. In Basay vs. Hacienda Consolacion, G.R No.
175532, April 19, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that-
7
“x x x The one who alleges a fact has the burden of
proving it and the proof should be clear, positive and
convincing. In this case aside from mere allegations, no
evidence was proffered by the petitioners that they were
dismissed from employment. x x x”
33. Unfortunately for the complainant, his mere allegations in the pro-
forma complaint is not tantamount to evidence. 12
34. As stated in the preceding paragraph, without any valid and legal
basis, the complainant is not entitled to any of his monetary claims. Thus,
respondent should not be held liable for the complainant’s legal expenses and
whatever attorney’s fees he may have obligated himself thereat on the
matter.
RESERVATIONS
PRAYER
Respectfully submitted.
LEOPOLDO FLORENTINO
Respondent
12
Martinez v. NLRC, 339 Phil. 176, 183 (1997).
8
Counsel for the Complainants
Roll of Attorney No. 33835
PTR No. 5797811, Quezon City, 01-31-18
IBP OR No.031951, Pasig City, 01-31-18
MCLE Compliance No. V-0025299
10 Gold land Mansions 5th Avenue, Cubao QC
Copy furnished:
GADY C. ANDAYA
24 Zuniaga Street
Sta. Ana, San Mateo
Rizal 1850.
CONTINUE VERIFICATION
1. I am the President of CJC Car and Van Rental Inc. and one of the
respondents in this labor case; and in such capacity,
2. I have caused the preparation and filing of this Position Paper and to
execute this Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping for and
in behalf of CJC CAR & VAN RENTAL INC.;
3. I have read the same and affirm that all allegations are true and correct
based on my personal knowledge and on authentic records; and
4. I have not commenced or caused to be commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; and that to the best of my
9
knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals, or any tribunal or agency; and
6. Should I learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any tribunal or
agency, I shall notify this Honorable Office within five (5) days from
such notice.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument on January 8, 2018,
Quezon City, Philippines.
JESSE CARDINAL P. MINOZA
Competent ID No _____
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public for and in the City of
Quezon, affiant exhibiting to me his Competent Identification as shown above.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc No. ____
Page No. ____
Book No.____
Series of 2018
10