REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. 8
City of Manila


JAIME RIVERA, Complainant
-versus-
HIJ COMPANY, and its President, NLRC Case No. RAB VIII 10-12-14
ERWIN DE GUZMAN, Respondents (Labor Arbiter: Hon. Claro Miguel)

POSITION PAPER
RESPONDENT, by counsel, unto this Honorable Office, respectfully submits its Position Paper
in the above stated case as follows:

THE PARTIES
1. Complainant, JAIME RIVERA, is of legal age, Filipino, and with known address at No.
59, Cebu St., Tondo, City of Manila;
2. Respondent, HIJ COMPANY (HIJ, for brevity) is a corporation duly organized and
existing under Philippine laws, with office address at No. 3157 Evangelista St., Sta.
Cruz, Manila;
3. Co-Respondent Erwin de Guzman is of legal age, Filipino, and with office address at
No. 3157 Evangelista St., Sta. Cruz, Manila. He is the President of HIJ.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Complainant was hired by Respondent company, HIJ sometime on January 2010 for the
position of Manager, with a monthly salary of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00);
2. Complainant was responsible for overseeing and managing the manufacture and
distribution of the textile products of the respondent HIJ;
3. It should be noted that respondent HIJ depends on the attainment of its monthly
production quotas for the continuity of its businesses. Hence, if there is any reduction in
the workload and/or the business itself over which respondent HIJ has no control, the
latter is bound to suffer irreversible financial and economic losses;
4. This is true in the instant case, as sometime in August 2014, respondent HIJ reported a
loss of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS ( P30, 000.00) due to the managerial decision of
Complainant to approve wrong cuts of fabric during production;
5. That prior to the incident stated above, Respondent HIJ has also not been meeting the
production quota under the management of Complainant;
6. It is for this reason that on September 15, 2014, Respondent HIJ gave Complainant a
Notice To Explain to inform the Complainant and ask for an explanation of his
negligence regarding the approval he issued for the wrong cuts; and his inability to meet
the agreed production quotas, both of which are part of his duties and accountabilities as
Manager. A copy of said Notice is hereto attached as Annex 1;
7. Complainant responded in writing, admitting the occurrence of such events, and stated
his explanation and defenses. Said Response is hereto attached as Annex 2;
8. On September 30, 2014, Respondent HIJ, through a Notice of Disciplinary Action and
Termination informed the Complainant of the termination of his services on the grounds
that the Respondent Company lost trust and confidence in his ability to perform his duties
and responsibilities as a Manager. Said Notice is hereto attached as Annex 3;
9. Therefore, Complainants allegation that he was dismissed illegally is without legal and
factual basis. It should be noted that complainants position is one imbued with trust and
confidence, and as such, the loss of confidence is a just cause for the Respondent HIJ to
dismiss or terminate his services;
10. Finally, during the mediation conference held on October 1, 2014, the parties failed to
settle the case amicably and so the Honorable Labor Arbiter ordered the parties to file
their respective Position Papers.
11. Hence, the foregoing Position Paper for the respondents is being submitted.

ISSUE/S

a. Whether the Complainants dismissal due to lack of trust and confidence was a valid
ground for dismissal
b. Whether substantial and due process was observed in the dismissal of the Complainant
c. Whether the Complainant is entitled to all his money claims such as unpaid salaries, non-
payment of holiday pay, nonpayment of proportionate Service Incentive Leave pay, and
separation pay

DISCUSSION

Whether the Complainants dismissal due to lack of trust and confidence was a valid
ground for dismissal.

For breach of trust and confidence to become a valid ground for the dismissal of an
employee, the cause of loss of trust and confidence must be related to the performance of the
employees duties.
In the instant case, the Complainant was dismissed for his inability to meet the
production goals of the company, and for his negligence in approving the wrong cuts of fabric,
which resulted in the companys loss of profit.
Article 282 of the Labor Code states:
ART. 282. TERMINATION BY EMPLOYER. An employer may terminate an
employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of
his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer
or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer
or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
Article 282 (b) prescribes two grounds that must concur for the termination of
employment: the employees gross and habitual neglect of his duties.
In this case, Complainant admitted the occurrence of such acts of negligence when he
admitted in writing that the company has not been meeting the quota for several months and that
he was also responsible for approving the wrong cuts of fabric, which resulted in the companys
loss of profit.
It is therefore clear that Complainant has been for several months habitually in neglect of
his duties.
In Jerusalem v. Hock, it was held that the first requisite for dismissal on the ground of
loss of trust and confidence is that the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust
and confidence. In this case, there is no doubt that Complainant held a position of trust and
confidence as Manager of HIJ Company.
In Abel v. Philex Mining Corporation, the second requisite is that there must be an act
that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. Loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid
cause for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established
facts. The basis for the dismissal must be clearly and convincingly established but proof beyond
reasonable doubt is not necessary. In this case, the Complainant was dismissed from his
employment based solely on his inability to perform and deliver his duties and responsibilities as
Manager.
Such grounds were not mere conjectures, but grounded on hard facts that even
Complainant did not dispute. In Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Gulde, loss of confidence as a just cause
for termination of employment is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a
position of responsibility or trust and confidence. He must be invested with confidence on
delicate matters, such as custody handling or care and protection of the property and assets of the
employer. And, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be
work-related and shows that the employee concerned is unfit to continue to work for the
employer.
In fine, an employees failure to meet sales or work quotas falls under the concept of
gross inefficiency, which in turn is analogous to gross neglect of duty that is a just cause for
dismissal under Article 282 of the Code. (Aliling v. Feliciano)

Therefore, the Respondent HIJ was within its right to dismiss the complainant, as there
existed work-related incidents that clearly show that Complainant is not fit to continue working
for the Respondent, lest it allow itself to suffer more losses due to the Complainants
incompetence and negligence as a Manager.

Whether procedural due process was observed in the dismissal of the Complainant.

When the Labor Code speaks of procedural due process, the reference is usually to the two
(2)-written notice rule envisaged in Section 2 (III), Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code, which provides:
Section 2. Standard of due process: requirements of notice. In all cases of termination
of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed.

I. For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the
Code:
(a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for
termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain
his side;
(b) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of
counsel if the employee so desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present
his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him; and
(c) A written notice [of] termination served on the employee indicating that upon due
consideration of all the circumstance, grounds have been established to justify his
termination.
In case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be served on the employees last
known address.
The due process requirement is met when there is simply an opportunity to be heard and to
explain ones side even if no hearing is conducted. An employee may be afforded ample
opportunity to be heard by means of any method, verbal or written, whether in a hearing,
conference or some other fair, just and reasonable way. After receiving the first notice apprising
him of the charges against him, the employee may submit a written explanation (which may be
in the form of a letter, memorandum, affidavit or position paper) and offer evidence in support
thereof, like relevant company records and the sworn statements of his witnesses. (Reyes-Rayel
vs. Philippine Luen Thai Holdings Corporation, et al.)
It must be noted from the facts that Complainant was given the opportunity to explain and
defend her side provided her with the requisite due process. First, he was given a Notice to
Explain citing the grounds for his dismissal or termination; Second, he was given an opportunity
to explain his side and present his defenses in writing; that he was not given a hearing,
investigation or an opportunity to appeal is of no moment since there was no existing company
policy affording employees such right. Lastly, it was upon receipt of the Complainants
Explanation that the Respondent Company decided to terminate his employment based on the
grounds established to justify his termination.
Therefore, it can be surmised that Respondent Companys acts in dismissing the
Complainant were in observance of the required due process as stated in the Labor Code.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to all his money claims such as unpaid salaries, non-
payment of holiday pay, nonpayment of proportionate Service Incentive Leave pay, and
separation pay

Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 34 of Republic Act 6715 instructs:
Art. 279. Security of Tenure. - In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not
terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this
Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full
back wages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to
the time of his actual reinstatement.
In Golden Ace Builders v. Talde,

the Court ruled:
The basis for the payment of back wages is different from that for the award of separation
pay. Separation pay is granted where reinstatement is no longer advisable because of
strained relations between the employee and the employer. Back wages represent
compensation that should have been earned but were not collected because of the unjust
dismissal. The basis for computing back wages is usually the length of the employee's
service while that for separation pay is the actual period when the employee was
unlawfully prevented from working.
From the law and the prevailing jurisprudence, it is clear that back wages or
reinstatement are entitled to the dismissed employee if he or she is unjustly dismissed from work.
In instances where reinstatement is no longer feasible because of strained relations between the
employee and the employer, separation pay is granted. In effect, an illegally dismissed employee
is entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable,
and back wages. (Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines)
It is well settled in Labor Law that moral damages are recoverable only 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, goo d customs or public policy. Exemplary
damages maybe awarded only if the dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive or
malevolent manner. (Spartan Security and Detective Agency, Inc., vs. NLRC)
In the instant case, however, such claims by Complainant should not be heeded as he was
not illegally dismissed from his employment; nor was there bad faith and non-observance of the
due process requirement in effecting his termination. Complainant stands on no ground to lay
claim for any unpaid salaries or benefits which he claims to be rightfully his, as his termination
was effected well within the rights of the Respondent Company.

P R A Y E R
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Office that the instant
complaint be dismissed for utter lack of merit.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted. Quezon City for the City of Manila, October 13, 2014.

Seguncencia S. Arpon
Counsel for Respondents
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
IBP No. 721/11-19-13
Roll No. 23498
PTRNo.151/021313/Manila
MCLE Compliance No.
0005642/42712






REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
CITY OF MANILA ) SS

VERIFICATION

I, ERWIN DE GUZMAN, of legal age and Filipino, after having been duly sworn in
accordance with law, depose and state that:
I am the President of HIJ Company, one of the respondents in the above-entitled case;
that I have caused the preparation and filing of the POSITION PAPER; and I have read
and understood the contents thereof and the same are true and correct to the best of my
personal knowledge and based on authentic record.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this October 13, 2014.

ERWIN DE GUZMAN
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this October 13, 2014; affiant exhibited to me
his Passport Number EC12343, Issued in Manila this August 8, 2012.

NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No. 43
Page No. 26
Book No. 04
Series of 2014


Copy Furnished:

JAIME RIVERA
Complainant