Answer Cudal
Answer Cudal
x----------------------------------------------------------x
ANSWER
(RE: MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL)
TIMELINESS
ISSUES
1|Page
IV. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT IS
ENTITLED TO THEIR MONETARY CLAIMS AND
DAMAGES
I. COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT FAILED TO
PERFECT ITS APPEAL.
“(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|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.
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.
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
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
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.
h. However, despite such opportunities the latter still claimed that she
was being constructively dismissed despite the staggering and
overwhelming evidence provided against her.
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
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.
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.
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.
8|Page
audacity to claim that they have been terminated from employment without
observing due process.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Copy furnished:
REYNALDO C. AGUAS
2279 ACACIA ST. NAPICO MANGGAHAN
CITY OF PASIG
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.
12 | P a g e