REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
QUEZON CITY

REYNALDO CUDAL AGUAS, ET. AL.,

Complainant-Appellant,

-versus- NLRC-NCR CASE NO. 01-01595-20

NLRC-LAC NO. ________________.

PAY PHILEXCHANGE INC.,/

(1) EDGAR V. BENEDICTO, (2) JUDITH DELEON,
(2) ANNA MARIE LUSONG, (4) ROSALIE SILVA.,
Respondent- Appellees.

x----------------------------------------------------------x
ANSWER
(RE: MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL)

RESPONDENT-APPELLEES, by undersigned counsel and unto this

Honorable Commission most respectfully submit this ANSWER and most
respectfully allege that:

TIMELINESS

The Respondent-Apellees, received a copy of the Memorandum of Appeal

of the Complainant-Appellant on January 4, 2021 and has 10 days from receipt or
until January 13, 2021 within which to file this Answer.

ISSUES

The Complainant-Appellants in their MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL raises the

following issues:

I. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINT-APPELLANT HAS

PERFECTED ITS APPEAL.

II. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT-APPELLEES EDGAR V.

BENEDICTO, JUDITH DE LEON, ANNA MARIE LUSONG
AND ROSALIE SILVA SHOULD BE HELD SOLIDARILY
LIABLE WITH RESPONDENT-APPELLEE PAY
PHILEXCHANGE INC.

III. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT APPELLANTS WERE

CONSTRUCTIVELY DISMISSED FROM EMPLOYMENT.

1|Page
 IV. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT IS
ENTITLED TO THEIR MONETARY CLAIMS AND
DAMAGES

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

In discussing the issue raised by the Complainant we must be reminded of

the immortal words of Jean-Jacques Rousseau a French philosopher and writer
whose novels inspired the leaders of the French Revolution in 1712-1778, he said
“Temperance and labor are the two best physicians of man; labor sharpens the
appetite, and temperance prevents from indulging to excess”.

I. COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT FAILED TO
PERFECT ITS APPEAL.

1. Upon perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the Complainant-

Appellant, records of the case would clearly reveal that the latter failed to
comply with the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure Rule VI section 4 (5)
thereof to wit:

“(5) accompanied by: i) proof of payment of the required appeal fee and
legal research fee; ii) posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in
Section 6 of this Rule; and iii) proof of service upon the other
parties.”(italics bold ours supplied)

2. In order for the Complainant-Appellants to perfect their appeal its is

mandated that the corresponding proof of payment of the required appeal fee
and legal research fee be included or attached to the Memorandum of
Appeal filed.

3. Complainant-Appellants failure to pay the corresponding appeal fee and

legal research fee thus has resulted in the latter’s failure to perfect the
Appeal for failure to comply with a condition precedent.

II. RESPONDENT-APPELLEES BENEDICTO,

LUSONG, DE LEON AND SILVA
CANNOT BE HELD SOLIDARILY LIABLE
AND SHOULD BE DROPPED AS PARTIES
TO THE CASE.

4. It must be stressed that the appeal filed by the Complainant-Appellant has

failed to make an allegations which would warrant the inclusion of
Respondent-Appellees Bendedicto, Lusong, De Leon and Silva as parties to
the instant case.

2|Page
 5. Such issue regarding the personal liability of the officers of a corporation for
the payment of wages and money claims to its employees, as in the instant
case, has long been resolved by the Supreme Court in a long list of cases
[A.C. Ransom Labor Union-CLU vs. NLRC (142 SCRA 269) and reiterated
in the cases of Chua vs. NLRC(182 SCRA 353), Gudez vs. NLRC (183
SCRA 644)]. In the aforementioned cases, the Supreme Court has expressly
held that the irresponsible officer of the corporation (e.g. President) is liable
for the corporation’s obligations to its workers.

6. Given that no allegation was ever made by the Complainant-Appellants

never made any allegations concerning any act performed by the above
stated Respondents regarding their claims which can be interpreted as
“irresponsible”, it is improper for her to be impleaded herein.

7. In fact, on Appeal Complainant-Appellants likewise did not make any

allegations concerning any overt acts performed by the above stated
Respondent-Appellees which would warrant their liability. Considering the
Resolution adopted by the Honorable Labor arbiter was for the Dismissal of
the Case for lack of merit, the act of the Complainant-Appellant of
impleading the above stated Respondent-Appellees in this appeal is
improper and should not be sustained by this Honorable Commission.

8. The above stated Respondent-Appellees are officers of the Respondent-

Appellee Corporation who merely performed their respective functions, and
absent any bad faith in the performance of such duties, the same shall not
render them liable for any claims filed by a dismissed Employee.

9. It has been held, however, that "allegations of bad faith and fraud must be
proved by clear and convincing evidence."1 They are never presumed
considering that they are serious accusations that can be so conveniently and
casually invoked.2 And unless convincingly substantiated by whoever is
alleging them, they amount to mere slogans or mudslinging.

10.There being no specific allegations made by the Complainant-Appellant

concerning the bad faith which may have been performed by the above
stated Respondent-Appellees, their inclusion as parties to the case must
naturally fail.

III. THERE IS NO CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL

AT THE CASE AT BAR.
1
Spouses Palada v. Solidbank Corporation, 668 Phil. 172, 174 (2011).
2
Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. v. Sps. Vazquez, supra note 32 at 321.

3|Page
 11.Complainant-Appellants in its appeal wishes to impress upon this Honorable
Commission that they have been constructively dismissed from employment
however, records submitted during the proceedings before the Honorable
Labor Arbiter would clearly reveal that the Complainant-Appellants were
properly dismissed from employment for cause for the following reasons”

A. DISCUSSIONS REGARDING
COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT DELA CRUZ

1. COMPLAINANT APPELLANT DELA CRUZ RESIGNED FROM

EMPLOYMENT.

a. Upon close perusal of the records of the case, the same would
clearly reveal that Complainant-Appellant Dela Cruz merely
resigned from employment and as such “it is incumbent upon her
to prove that her resignation was involuntary and that it was
actually a case of constructive dismissal with clear, positive and
convincing evidence”3

b. At the case at bar, Complainant-Appellant Dela Cruz was a truant

employee who failed to observe several provisions of the
Respondent-Appellee’s Code of Conduct as previously discussed
in the Respondents position paper, and attached as Annex “V”
thereof and Annex “W” (Complainant-Appellant Dela Cruz
Acknowledgment).

c. Hence records of the case, would clearly reveal that Complainant-

Appellant Dela Cruz was clearly being merely reprimanded for her
failure to observe the Respondent-Appellees Rules and regulations
concerning the care and keeping of private and confidential
information as evidence by the Incident Reports, Notice To
Explain issued by the Respondent-Appellee and other documentary
evidence previously marked as Annexes “C-C2” ,”D”, “F”, “G”,
“H” , “I” , “J” “K”, “L”, “M”, and “N” in the position paper of the
Respondent-Appellee.

d. In addition to the foregoing, Complainant-Appellant Dela Cruz

was likewise dismissed for here dereliction in duties when she
clearly endangered the business of the Respondent-Appellee when
she failed to process a Php 60,000,000.00 Load transaction of one
of the top clients of the latter, to which another Notice to Explain
was issued to the latter marked as Annex “P” in the position paper.

e. It must be emphasized that despite Complainant-Appellant Dela

Cruz’s continued abysmal performance in her duties and

3
Rosalinda G. Paredes, vs. FTCP Inc. et al G.R. No. 184397

4|Page
 obligations the latter was never dismissed or terminated from
employment but was merely being suspended from employment.

f. However, despite the leniency extended by the Respondent-

Appellee, the latter opted to file her resignation with claims that
she was being constructively dismissed as evidenced by her
resignation letter marked as Annex “I” of the position paper of the
Respondent Appellant.

g. In all proceedings for the offenses of Complainant-Appellant De

Leon, the latter was accorded due process and opportunity to be
heard as evidence by the Notices to Explain issued by the
Respondent-Appellee as well as the fact that several administrative
hearings were even conducted in order to further give the latter an
opportunity to air out her side.

h. However, despite such opportunities the latter still claimed that she
was being constructively dismissed despite the staggering and
overwhelming evidence provided against her.

i. To emphasize, Complainant-Appellant Dela Cruz was not

constructively dismissed from employment nor was she terminated
from the same, her separation from employment was brought about
by her decision to resign and its subsequent acceptance by the
Respondent-Appellee.

j. Complainant-Appellant’s misconceived notion that she was

allegedly constructively dismissed from employment stems from
the fact that she cannot accept that she was being disciplined by
her employer.

k. “The right of an employer to regulate all aspects of employment is

well settled. This right, aptly called management prerogative, gives
employers the freedom to regulate, according to their discretion
and best judgment, all aspects of employment, including work
assignment, working methods, processes to be followed, working
regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of
workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. 10 In
general, management has the prerogative to discipline its
employees and to impose appropriate penalties on erring workers
pursuant to company rules and regulations.”4

4
ANGELITO P. DELES, JR., vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FIRST PHIL. INDUSTRIAL CORP. and/or
FLAVIANO C. SANTOS, G.R. No. 121348   March 9, 2000

5|Page
 B. DISCUSSION REGARDING COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT
REYNALDO CUDAL AGUAS

1. COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT CUDAL WAS NOT ILLEGALLY

DISMISSED FROM EMPLOYMENT.

a. The records of the case would clearly show that Complainant-

Appellant was validly terminated from service on account of his
poor performance and inability to meet the required target quotas
imposed by the company for those in his position.

b. The Respondent-Appellee having complied with the procedural

requirements mandated by the law in the termination of the
services of Complainant-Appellant Cudal by placing the latter
under a performance improvement plan and thereafter by
complying with the Twin Notice Rule as evidenced by the Notice
to Explain, Notice of Decision and Performance Improvement
Plans marked as Annexes “C”,”D”,”F”,”G-G-23” and “H” in the
position paper of the Complainant-Appellant.

c. Complainant-Appellant Cudal was accorded every opportunity by

the Respondent-Appellee to improve his performance and provided
him with coaching sessions and guidance on how to improve his
work performance, however all prove to be useless as the latter still
failed to meet the required targets of his position.

d. The Complainant-Appellant Cudal’s continued neglect of his

duties and poor performance not only substantially affected the
business operations of the Respondent-Appellee to which leaving
the latter no choice but to terminate the his services for just cause.

e. The Respondent-Appellee is well within its rights as an employer

“to impose productivity standards for its workers, and in fact, non-
compliance may be visited with a penalty more severe than
demotion. Thus the practice of accompany in laying off workers
because they failed to make the work quota has been recognized in
this jurisdiction.”5

f. Hence, it is clear that the Respondent-Appellee in the exercise of

its management prerogative has the right to terminate the services
of Complainant-Appellant Cudal for his continued poor
performance as well as for his habitual absenteeism.

C. DISCUSSIONS APPLICABLE TO BOTH COMPLAINANT-

APPELLANTS
5
Philippine American Embroideries vs. Embroidery and Garment Workers, 26 SCRA 634. 639

6|Page
 a. The Complainant-Appellants wishes to impress upon this Honorable
Commission that they have been constructively dismissed from
employment, at that the burden of proving just cause for terminating their
services lies on the Respondent-Appellee.

b. Constructive dismissal is defined as quitting or cessation of work because

continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely;
when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay and other
benefits. It exists if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain
by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it
could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued
employment. There is involuntary resignation due to the harsh, hostile,
and unfavorable conditions set by the employer. The test of constructive
dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position
would have felt compelled to give up his employment/position under the
circumstances.6

c. At the case at bar, there can be no constructive dismissal to speak of for

the simple reason that the Complainant-Appellants were merely being
disciplined for their failure to observe the Rules and Regulations imposed
upon by the company concerning their employment.

d. Both Complainant-Appellants were accorded the proper opportunity to

explain their respective sides for the charges filed against them and in
fact in the case of Complainant-Appellant Dela Cruz was only meted a
penalty of suspension rather than dismissing her from employment, while
Complainant-Appellant Cudal was placed under a performance
improvement plan rather than having to terminate his services.

e. The decisions undertaken by the Respondent-Appellee are all in

accordance with its management prerogative of disciplining its erring
employees and the same can not in any jurisdiction be construed as act
constituting constructive dismissal.

f. In fact, upon close examination of the allegations made by the

Complainant-Appellant aside from the latter’s bare allegation that
Complainant-Appellant Dela Cruz was allegedly forced to resign and that
Complainant-Appellant was allegedly immediately terminated from
service there is nothing to support or warrant such allegations made.

g. The Complainant-Appellants bare assertions are contrary to the existing

documentary evidence presented by the Respondent-Appellee wherein
the Complainant-Appellants were duly accorded due process and hearing
prior to the resignation of Complainant-Appellant Cudal and the
termination of employment by Complainant-Appellant Cudal.

6
Gan v. Galderma Philippines, Inc., et al., supra, at 638-639.

7|Page
 h. In both instances they have been accorded the right to be informed by
tendering them Due Notice of their respective infractions. They were
likewise accorded the right to be heard by according them an opportunity
to explain their side and by means of conducting an administrative
hearing. Thereafter, they were tendered the corresponding Notice of
Decision which unfortunately was not favorable to them.

i. With all due respect to this Honorable Commission the foregoing case at
bar cannot in anyway be construed as one of Constructive Dismissal nor
of Illegal Dismissal, but rather is one were thick skinned employees who
have been accorded several opportunities to improve had the audacity to
institute a baseless complaint.

IV. THE COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT FAILED TO

RAISE ANY ISSUES WHICH MAY BE APPEALABLE

12.The 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure Rule VI Section 2 expressly provides

for the grounds upon which an appeal may be filed, to wit:

“Section 2. Grounds – The appeal may be entertained only on any of the

following grounds:
a) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the
Labor Arbiter or Regional Director;
b) If the decision, award or order was secured through fraud or coercion,
including graft and corruption;
c) If made purely on questions of law; and/or
d) If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which, if not corrected,
would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.”

13.At the case at bar not once has the Complainant-Appellants claimed that
there was prima facie abuse of discretion when the Labor Arbiter rendered
her decision, nor have they made any allegations constituting the same.

14.Nor have the Complainant-Appellants raised any issue which would fall on
the above stated grounds. Rather, the latter seeks to overturn the decision of
the Honorable Labor Arbiter solely on the bases of their bare, fraudulent and
baseless allegations.

V. THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINAINT

APPELLANT ARE CONTRARY TO THE
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED

15.The Complainant-Appellants wishes to impress upon this Honorable

Commission that they have been deprived of due process and even have the

8|Page
 audacity to claim that they have been terminated from employment without
observing due process.

16.However, as previously discussed and as existing documentary evidence

attached to the Position paper of the Respondent-Appellee, the records
would clearly show that they have been continuously accorded due process
and that the Twin Notice requirements have bene properly been observed.

17.Furthermore, in no way was the substantial rights of the Complainant-

Appellants been violated as they have been duly terminated from
employment for authorized caused.

18.Nor were their right to security of tenure violated. It appears that the
Complainant-Appellants have a misguide interpretation of what security of
tenure represents.

19.Security of tenure however does not guarantee perpetual employment. If

there exists a just or an authorized cause, the employer may terminate the
services of an employee but subject always to procedural requirements. The
employer cannot be legally compelled to have in its employ a person whose
continued employment is patently inimical to its interest. The law, while
affording protection to the employee, does not authorize the oppression or
destruction of his employer7.

20.At the case at bar, Complainant-Appellant Dela Cruz opted to resign from
employment while Complainant-Appellant Cudal was terminated for just
cause on account of the latter’s poor performance.

VI. COMPLAINAINT-APPELLANTS ARE

NOT ENTITLED TO THEIR MONEY CLAIMS.

21.The Monetary Claims of the Complainant-Appellant should necessarily fail

for the simple reason that there are no outstanding obligations due to the
latter which arose from their employment with the Respondent-Appellee as
duly proven by the documentary evidence attached to the position paper of
the Respondent-Appellee

22.Furthermore, Complainant-Appellants are estopped from claiming

backwages as the same was never prayed for in the original complaint filed
against the Respondent-Appellee nor its award be deemed proper as there
was no illegal or constructive dismissal to speak of.

7
RUBEN SERRANO vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ISETANN
DEPARTMENT STORE G.R. No. 117040           January 27, 2000

9|Page
 VII. THE AWARD OF MORAL AND
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES IS IMPROPER

23.Moral damages are recoverable where the dismissal of the employee was
attended by bad faith or fraud or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or
was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. On
the other hand, exemplary damages are proper when the dismissal was
effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner, and public policy
requires that these acts must be suppressed and discouraged8.

24.Hence, the person claiming bad faith must prove its existence by clear and
convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith.

Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence. It imports
a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a
wrong, a breach of known duty through some motive or interest or ill will
that partakes of the nature of fraud. It is, therefore, a question of
intention, which can be inferred from one’s conduct and/or
contemporaneous statements9.

25.At the case at bar, the Complainant-Appellants never established the acts
which may have been allegedly committed by the Respondent-Appellees
that would constitute bad faith.

26.There being no material allegations or substantial evidence to establish bad

faith, the claim for moral and exemplary damages is highly improper.

27.It is worth noting that, not only has the Respondent Appellee already
suffered greatly by reason of the economic downturn brought about by the
Pandemic, but to be continuously plagued by baseless and unwarranted
claims by the Complainant-Appellants is nothing but the height of injustice
to honest business enterprises fighting for its survival during these most
trying times.

28.It is most humbly submitted to this Honorable Office that to entertain, if not
give any credence to a baseless Appeal unsubstantiated by any material or
factual evidence on hand, which in turn seeks to conduct fishing expeditions
for evidence would be the height of injustice to any party litigant.

PRAYER

8
San Miguel Corporation v. Eduardo L. Teodosio G.R. No. 163033, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 197-219.
9
ARCO PULP AND PAPER CO., INC. and CANDIDA A. SANTOS, vs. DAN T. LIM, doing business under the name and
style of QUALITY PAPERS & PLASTIC PRODUCTS ENTERPRISES G.R. No. 206806 June 25, 2014

10 | P a g e
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto
this Honorable Office that the foregoing Memorandum of Appeal be dismissed and
the Resolution of the Honorable Labor Arbiter dated October 30, 2020 be affirmed
in toto.

Such other reliefs and remedies as are just and equitable under the foregoing
circumstances are likewise equally prayed for.

January 12, 2021 Quezon City

ATTY. ZEUS IZZY YEE

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS
TH
14 ST. UNIT 34 GALLERIA TOWNHOMES
BRGY. DAMAYANG LAGI, NEW MANILA
QUEZON CITY
IBP LIFETIME NO. 011533, 2/5/2013/Q.C.
PTR NO. 0731738 JANUARY 11, 2021
ROLL NO. 59230
MCLE COMP #VI-0014968

Copy furnished:

ATTY. LEANDRO N. OPETINA

RM 212 JIAO BLDG 2 TIMOG AVENUE
QUEZON CITY
METRO MANILA

REYNALDO C. AGUAS
2279 ACACIA ST. NAPICO MANGGAHAN
CITY OF PASIG
METRO MANILA

MARIA THERESA A. DELA CRUZ

9 ALLEY 11 ROAD 3 POJECT 6
QUEZON CITY
METRO MANILA

WRITTEN EXPLANATION

11 | P a g e
Due to distance and lack of messengerial services, the service of the foregoing
pleading was made by registered mail in lieu of the preferred mode of personal
service.

ZEUS IZZY YEE

12 | P a g e