Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9


RYAN SUAREZ, Complainant, - versus Civil Case No !"#$% Fo& ' Ille(al Dis)issal

ABC CORPORATION a*+ JOSE CRUZ, Respondents, , --------------------------------------- ,

Complainant, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submit their Position Paper and state that: THE PARTIES Complainant RYAN CRUZ is of legal age, Filipino and with residence at No. 22, an !ose treet, Pasig City"

Respondent ABC CORPORATION is a corporation organi#ed and e$isting under Philippine %aws, and with residence at &a'ati ()enue, &a'ati City"

*he other respondent is JOSE CRUZ of legal age, Filipino, President of (+C Corporation"

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE ,n -ecember 2../, complainant was hired by (+C Corporation as a uper)isor in the Finance -epartment.

,n !une 2..0, due to his good performance, he was promoted as (ssistant &anager and started ser)ing as a member of the (udit Committee, which reports to the +oard of -irectors of the Respondent Corporation. ,n !anuary 2.12, he was again promoted as &anager of the same department"

,n !anuary 21, 2.12, he recei)ed a memo from the Human Resources -epartment, signed by its manager and noted by the Company President, &r. !ose -. Cru#, putting him on pre)enti)e suspension for thirty days. *he memo stated that the company has recei)ed information that he is in)ol)ed in certain irregularities affecting the funds and finances of the company. He was ad)ised to immediately turn o)er all company properties in his possession"

*he Complainant went to the President and as'ed him what was going on. *he President simply told him to spea' with the HR &anager.

,n February 1/, 2.12, the complainant recei)ed a Notice to 3$plain. *he notice as'ed him to e$plain in writing within / days why he should not be dismissed for the offenses alleged in the memo. *he memo states that he allegedly appro)ed the payment of money to third parties in se)eral transactions which were not appro)ed by the +oard of -irectors of the Company"

,n February 14, 2.12, he submitted a written e$planation stating that all the payments were with the appro)al of the +oard of -irectors. *hese transactions were e)en discussed during the +oard meetings, and the +oard )oted to appro)e the transactions and corresponding payments"

,n &arch /, 2.12, the Complainant did not recei)e any decision from the Company on his disciplinary case. (lso, there was no ad)ice for him to return to wor'.


5H3*H3R ,R N,* C,&P%(6N(N* C(N +3 *3R&6N(*3- +7 (+C C,RP,R(*6,N ,N (N7 8R,9NPR,:6-3- +7 (R*6C%3 2;2 ,F PR3 6-3N*6(% -3CR33 N,. <<2 5H3*H3R ,R N,* *H3 C,&P%(6N(N* 5( 6%%38(%%7 -6 &6 3- +7 -3PR6:6N8 H6 C,N *6*9*6,N(% R68H* *, -93 PR,C3 ,F %(5 5H3*H3R ,R N,* C,&P%(6N(N* C(N +3 R36N *(*3- (N3N*6*%3- F,R +(C=5(83 , &,R(% (N- 3>3&P%(R7 -(&(83 (N- (**,RN37? F33 5H3*H3R ,R N,* *H3 PR3 6-3N* ,F *H3 R3 P,N-3N* C,RP,R(*6,N 6 (% , %6(+%3 F,R *H3 -(&(83




DISCUSSION COMPLAINANT IS NOT GUILTY OF ANY GROUNDS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE "." OF P D $"" TO BE VALIDLY TERMINATED BY THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION Complainant did not commit any of the ground pro)ided by Presidential -ecree <22, %abor Code of the Philippines, (rticle 2;2 states that: @(n employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:

erious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representati)e in connection with his wor'" (b) 8ross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties

Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authori#ed representati)e" (d) Commission of a crime offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authori#ed representati)e" and (e) ,ther causes analogous to the foregoingA

*he guilt of the Complainant has not been substantially pro)en by the HR -epartment of Respondent Corporation. *he employer may dismiss an employee if the former has reasonable grounds to belie)e, or to entertain the moral con)iction, that the latter is responsible for the misconduct and nature of his participation therein renders him absolutely unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.1 *he Company failed to pro)ide reasonable grounds and proofs to belie)e that the Complainant indeed processed unauthori#ed transactions. *he Respondents failed to pro)ide adeBuate support li'e &inutes of the +oard &eetings"

9nsupported by sufficient proof, loss of confidence is without bases and may not be successfully in)o'ed as a ground for dismissal. %oss of confidence as a ground for dismissal has ne)er been intended to afford an occasion for abuse by the employer of its prerogati)e, as it can easily be subCect to abuse because of its subCecti)e nature.2

THE COMPLAINANT /AS DEPRIVED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LA/ AND THUS, ILLEGALLY DISMISSED BY THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION *he Complainant was depri)ed of substanti)e due process and procedural due process before properly dismissed. ubstanti)e due process
1 Filipro, Inc. vs. National Labor elations !o""ission, #. . No. 73735, $%&%st 31, 1'(7. 2 )ernande* vs. National Labor elations !o""ission, #. . no. (43+2, $%&%st 1+, 1'('. ,ee also- ,alas vs. $boiti* .ne, Inc., #. . No. 17(236, /%ne 27, 2++(.

mandates that an employee can only be dismissed based on Cust or authori#ed causes. Procedural due process reBuires further that he can only be dismissed after he has been gi)en an opportunity to be heard. *he import of due process necessitates the compliance of these aspects3" Rule >>666 in -.,. No. 4, series of 1440 prescribes the standards of due process, )arying according to the cause of the termination. For termination of employment based on Cust causes as defined in (rticle 2;2 of the %abor Code, DbE ( hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the employee so desires, is gi)en opportunity to respond to the charge, present his e)idence or rebut the e)idence presented against him"

6t is clear in the reply made by the Complainant that the accusations are with no basis and the +oard of -irectors appro)ed the payment transactions during the board meeting. 5here the employee denies the charges against him, a hearing is necessary to thresh out all doubts. *he failure of the employer to gi)e the employee the benefits of a hearing and an in)estigation before his termination constitutes an infringement of his constitutional right to due process of law4"

*he Complainant has been under pre)enti)e suspension for more than the ma$imum period of thirty D2.E days. (fter the 2.Fday period of suspension, the employee must be reinstated to his former position because suspension beyond this ma$imum period amounts to constructi)e dismissal. ,n &arch 2.12, the Respondent failed to reinstate and as' the Complainant to report to wor'. *here may be constructi)e dismissal 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 e$cept to forego his continued employment.5


3 0ane1a vs. N L! and 0anila 0idto2n )otel, #. . No. 124+13, /%ne 5, 1''(. $lso- ob%sta $&ro 0arine 3rod%cts, Inc.vs. #oro"bale", #. . No. (+5++, /%l4 5, 1'('5 6road2a4 0otors, Inc. vs. National Labor elations !o""ission, #. . No. 7(3(2, 7ece"ber 14, 1'(7. 4 oc8e 938ilippines:, et al. vs. National Labor elations !o""ission, #. . No. (3335, .ctober 5, 1'('. 5





,n &arch 14;4, Republic (ct No. G01/ too' effect, amending the %abor Code. (rticle 204 thereof states in part: (n employee who is unCustly dismissed from wor' shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other pri)ileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation is withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement . Demphasis suppliedE. -ue to the illegal dismissal, Complainant suffered damages related to besmirched reputation due to the wrongful act of the Respondents. *he employer is liable for moral damages under the pro)isions of (rticle 222. of the Ci)il Code pro)iding for damages for @breaches of contractA where the employer acted fraudulently or in bad faith. +ad faith is essentially a state of mind affirmati)ely operating with a furti)e design or moti)e of ill will. 6 +ad faith imports a dishonest purpose of some moral obliBuity and conscious doing of a wrong. 6t does not simply connote bad Cudgment or negligence. 7"

From the moment the Complainant went to the President to as' for the details of the pre)enti)e suspension, the refusal of the latter to pro)ide the allegations shows bad faith since in the first place he must be )ery 'nowledgeable and aware whether or not those transactions were indeed unauthori#ed since it is common for the President to preside in the +oard of -irectors? meetings.
'. 1+.

*he attorney?s fee should be pro)ided by ABC CORPORATION in fa)or of the Complainant. 6n Rutaquio v. National Labor Relations Commission, 6t is settled that in actions for reco)ery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate, and thus, incur e$penses to protect his rights and interest, the award of attorney?s fees is legally and morally Custifiable.

@(ttorney?s fees may be awarded by a court if one who claims it is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur e$penses to protect one?s
6 7

interest by reason of an unCustified act or omission on the part of the party from whom it is sought(.A THE PRESIDENT OF THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION IS SOLIDARILY LIABLE /ITH THE CORPORATION *here is solidary liability when the obligation e$pressly so states, when the law so pro)ides, or when the nature of the obligation so requires . ! Realty "evelopment Corporation v. NLRC, on solidary liability of corporate officers in labor disputes, enlightens:

( corporation being a Curidical entity, may act only through its directors, officers and employees. ,bligations incurred by them, acting as such corporate agents are not theirs but the direct accountabilities of the corporation they represent. *rue solidary liabilities may at times be incurred but only when e$ceptional circumstances warrant such as, generally, in the following cases: 1. 5hen directors and trustees or, in appropriate cases, the officers of a corporation: DaE )ote for or assent to patently unlawful acts of the corporation" DbE act in bad faith or with gross negligence in directing the corporate affairs" 6n labor cases, for instance, the Court has held corporate directors and officers solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of employment of employees done with malice or in bad faith.

*he President is clearly in bad faith when he did not e$plain to the Complainant the reason for the pre)enti)e suspension. *he President must ha)e a clear idea of the allegations. 6t is common in the Company?s byFlaws that the President presides in all meetings of the +oard of -irectors. 6t is presumed that he 'nows whether or not the allegations made are correct and with proper basis.


/HEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that Cudgment be rendered in fa)or of the Complainant and against the Respondents as follows:
a) ,rdering

Respondent (+C C,RP,R(*6,N to reinstate Complainant without loss of seniority rights and other pri)ileges"


b) ,rdering

Respondent (+C C,RP,R(*6,N to pay complainant bac'wages computed from the date the latter was illegally dismissed, !anuary 21, 2.12" moral and e$emplary damages with a reasonable amount of P %3,333 33"

c) ,rdering Respondents (+C C,RP,R(*6,N and !, 3 CR9H to pay

d) ,rdering Respondents (+C C,RP,R(*6,N and !, 3 CR9H to pay

Complainant the amount of P !33,333 33 as attorney?s fees, P",%33 33 per hearing as appearance fees, and P 4,%33 33 as costs of suit. ,ther Cust and eBuitable reliefs are li'ewise prayed for. &a'ati City for City of &anila, ,ctober /, 2.12.

REALES AND REALES LA/ OFFICES Counsel for the Complainant 8lobill &ansion Poblacion, &a'ati City


JOMER C REALES, CPA G0/. (yala ()enue, &a'ati City &C%3 Compliance No. 666F((( 6ssued on ,ctober 24, 2..4 at &a'ati City 6+P No. 122</ I .1F./F11 I &a'ati City P*R No. G0;4 I .1F./F11 I &a'ati City

Copy furnished: (+C C,RP,R(*6,N !, 3 CR9H 22 an !ose t., &a'ati City

E1PLANATION Respondent and her counsel were furnished a copy of this Position Paper through registered mail as personal ser)ice could not be made due to distance and lac' of personnel.