Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

LABOR CASE

Submitted by:
Aileen V. Rioja
Anna Grace Duria

BSBA III-14 Marketing

Submitted to:
Professor: Morales, Jose A. Jr.

Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

INTRODUCTION OF THE CASES

Illegal Dismissal
Now a days many of the employees or workers had experience a different
problem or situation to their work or employer. Some of them did not do an action, but
some of them fight for their rights. Actual dismissal is when they terminate the
employees or workers without any valid reason. Under Article 282 of the Labor Code,
requires a valid cause to terminate an employee. If there is no valid cause, there is no
valid termination and the employer will held liable for illegal dismissal. If the cause of
dismissal is not fall under Article 282, the employee that illegally dismissed should be
given a separation pay by her employer. And I think the other benefits and incentives
should also give to the employee. Under Article 283 of the Labor Code identifies closure
or cessation of operation of the establishment as an authorized cause for terminating an
employee. Similarly, the said provision mandates that employees who are laid off from
work due to closures that are not due to business insolvency should be paid separation
pay equivalent to one-month pay or to at least one-half month pay for every year of
service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six months shall be considered one
whole year.

Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

BACKGROUND OF THE CASES

Illegal Dismissal
CASE 1
On September 24, 2012 OFW Petitioner, Marry Jean M. Rocero executed a case for
illegal dismissal, non-payment of salaries/ wages, overtime pay, vacation leave pay, sick
leave pay, attorneys fees, transportation expenses, moral and exemplary damages, lodged
against Real World Corporation/Trash Care Building Cleaning Est. and/or Cristina B.
Torres, Ma. Corazon L. Maning, Divina T. Magboo and Richard Real except Atty.
Gonzales dockrted as NCr-08-13117-17 and it was assigned to Labor Arbiter Padolina.
She complaint that Respondents Real World Corporation a local agency for its
foreign principal Trash Care building Cleaning Est. hired as a cashier in KSA for two (2)
years with a salary of US$500.00 with a copies and employment contract and official
receipt for her departure issued by POEA dated as march 19, 2010 attached as Annex A
and B respectively but Respondent did not indicated her employer in KSA, her
position, monthly salary and a Copy f Employment Contract is attached as Annex C.
Upon her arrival in KSA, she was fetched certain Raad Abdulaziz Ahmad Al Rashid
who took her passport and instead of working as a cashier she was forced to work as a
domestic helper with a monthly salary of US$200.00 instead of US$500.00. Mr. Al
Rashid showed her an employment Contract she signed in manila (Annex C) which
indicated her employer as Raad Abdulaziz Ahmad AL Rashid for the position of
Domestic Helper and a monthly salary at US$200.00. She tried to contact Real Word
Corporation in the Philippines but was prevented by her employer and left with no choice
she work as a domestic helper at 8:00 a.m to 12 midnigth and also work on Saturday
without compensation by the relatives of her employer. On March 2010 until her
repetition to the Philippines August 18, 2011 she only received a monthly salary a total of

Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

US$600.00, and because her employer failed and refused to pay her monthly salary from
June 2010 to August 2011 she was surrendered by her employer in the Philippine
Embassy in KSA and repatriated to the Philippines.
On April 24, 2012 a Mandatory Conference was held before the Labor Arbiter
Padolina where in the said conference, Respondents Richard Real and Judy Annabella J.
Real represented by Atty. Gonzales offered here the amount of P15,000.00, as Financial
Assistance and upon the receipt of complaint of the receive amounts she was forced to
sign A Deed of Quitclaim and Release by Atty. Gonzales a copy which is attached as
Annex D and due to the signing Respondents Richard Real and Judy Annabella was
dismissed similarly to other Respondents.
Due to forced signing of a Quitclaim and Release complaint filed another case for
the Deed of Quitclaim and Release a case of Falsification of Public Documents by Atty.
Gonzales
During initial mandatory hearing Respondents did not appear and also at the hearing
December 5 2012 Respondents were it was agreed that complaint was To Secure
Certification from the Office since no return card from the service of Summon and
Notices was yet received by Labor Arbiter. Because of that instead of sending other
respondents the properly corrected summonses and notices Labor Arbiter ordered the
complaint to file pleadings.
On June 28, 2013, Labor Arbiter Lilia S. Savari issued her decision in dismissing the
case for having been settled by virtue of the April 24, 2012 Quitclaim and Release where
in the Arbiter found out that it had been duly signed by the Labor Arbiter which shows
regularity of the said documents.

Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

CASE 2
In this case the complainant Evelyn S. Barreto complaint against Tetragrammation
Security and Investigation Agency, Inc./Nardo Rodrigo. She was illegally dismissed
(actual) by the employer. The complainant said that the respondent hired her on their
security business as a lady guard on January 24, 2007. She also deployed to the different
clients of the respondent. Her last assignment was at TC Plaza owned and operated by
respondent J-MAC, Inc. (as party respondents). On February 14, 2008 the management
committee of J-MAC gave complainant a memorandum for security implementation.
Complainant and her co-guard at 12 hour duty each, they were paid P7,500 for 15 days
but the complainant received only the amount of P2,750 or P5,500 for one month which
is not the exact amount of her salary. She also was never paid a minimum wage, overtime
pay, holiday pay, 5 days service incentive leave pay, and 13 th month pay. The complainant
also filed a case against her co-guard on May 21, 2008 in the Prosecutors Office for
Physical Injuries and Threat of her co-guard Reynaldo R. Azucena. After she filed a case
against to her co-guard on May 23, 2008, she was called by respondent Nardo Rodrigo
telling her that she was suspended for filling a case against her co-guard Reynaldo R.
Azucena. She made demands for reinstatement after 30 days suspension but she not
reinstated. Complainant claimed that she was illegally dismissed because of the filing the
case against her co-guard is not a ground for disciplinary action.
Respondent J-MAC argued that complaint has no cause of action against it as
there exist no employer-employee relationship between them for the following: First,
Respondent J-MAC, Inc. and Danilo Tan did not hire the complainant as she is connected
to Tetragrammation Security Agency which provides round the clock security at the back
of the building of TL Plaza. Second, J-MAC, Inc. does not pay complainants salary.
Third, respondents have no power to terminate the complainant. Fourth, respondents have
no control over the means and method of how complainant would secure the building.
The issue posed for resolution are whether or not complainant was illegally dismissed,
whether or not she is entitled to her other monetary claims, and whether respondent J-

Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

MAC, Inc. is liable to the claims of the complainant. Since respondent J-MAC did not
hire the complainant and that is was only a lessee of the Penthouse floor at TC Plaza with
whom respondent Tetragrammation was providing security guards, J-MAC is not liable
as there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties.
When case already filed respondent Tetragrammation Security and Investigation
Agency, Inc./Nardo Rodrigo failed to appear in the 3 consective scheduled conferences
despite receipt of Summons and Notices of Hearings. They are deemed to have waived
their rights to present defense or defenses. Also respondents Tetragrammation and
Rodrigo Tan having failed to appear nor file Position Paper despite receipt of Summons
and Notices of this Office, they are liable to the claims of the complainant which
remained uncontroverted and deemed admitted by the respondents. As respondents failed
to prove that complainant was validly dismissed, she is deemed illegally terminated.
Thus, as she does not want reinstatement, she must be paid separation pay.

RULINGS OF THE CASES

Illegal dismissal
CASE 1
First, the Honorable commission patently erred in holding that the Quitclaim and
Release executed by the Complaint-Apellant on April 24, 2012 before labor Arbiter
Marita V. Padolina Who heard the first case was valid and binding for being contrary to
law, public policy, moral and good and custom. Consequently, respondents Richard Real
and Judy Real shall remain liable to the complaint for the above money claim. The
Argument of Complaint also being offered by Atty. Gonzales to support her family is
not valid reason to invalidate the quitclaim she executed.
Second in view of above the findings, there is no need to dwell on the second
issue where the honorable commission gravely erred in holding that the ComplaintAppellant was barred from filling another case against the Respondents-Appellees as the

Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Act. Constitute Forum from Shopping; this is the rulings for complaint entered into a
valid of quitclaim and release, thereby releasing all respondents by virtue of the letters
joint and solidarily liability to all claims against them. Payment made by one of the
debtors extinguishes the obligation (Article 1217, Civil Code) And SECTION 15, RULE
VII OF THE 2011 NLRC the rules of procedure provides Motion For Reconsideration a
motion for reconsideration of any decision, resolution or order of the commission shall
not be entertained except when based on palpable or patent error; provide that the motion
of is filled within ten(100 calendar days from the receipt of decision, resolution or order
with proof of service that a copy of the same has been furnished, within the reglementary
period, the adverse party; and provided appealed from the decision of Labor Arbiter the

claims against Atty. Jose Paolo G. Gonzales who merely witnessed the execution of the
April 2012 quitclaim has to be dismissed for the lack of employer-employee relationship.
After the consideration of the arguments and discussion raised, the court finds that
there is no palpable or patent error, nor compelling justification or valid reason to modify,
alter, much less reverse the RESOLUTION sought to be reconsider
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is denied for lack of merit. NO
FURTHER MOTION OF SIMILAR NATURE SHALL BE ENTERTAINED.
SO ORDERED.

CASE 2
Complainant is entitled to salary differential as she was receiving a salary of
P5,500 per month (12 hour work per day). Also there is no proof that she was paid of
holiday pay, and 13th month pay, she is entitled thereof. Complainant is also entitled for
the payment of attorneys fees as she was forced to litigate and hire a lawyer to prosecute
her valid claims. The respondent appeal from the decision of the Labor Arbiter Lilia A.
Savari dated March 11, 2009, the dispositive portion of which reads: Wherefore, a

Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

decision is hereby rendered declaring that complainat was illegally dismissed. Corollarily,
respondents Tetragrammation Security and Investigation Agency, Inc./Nardo Rodrigo are
hereby ordered to pay complainant backwages from the time of her dismissal up to the
rendition of this decision, and to pay her separation pay of one (1) month salary as she
did not ask for reinstatement. Further, respondent are hereby ordered to pay complainant
salary differentials for 12 hour work, holiday pay and 13th month pay plus ten (10%)
percent of the total award as and by way of attorneys fees, and made an integral part
hereof. The appeal of the respondents dismissed because of the careful study of the
records of the case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents appeal is hereby DISMISSED
for non-perfection.
SO ORDERED.

A reconsideration of the declaration of this commission dated August 13, 2009 is

sought for by the respondents upon grounds which is already judiciously and deliberately
resolved. And such, this Commission finds no cogent to depart from and to reconsider the
decision. The Manifestation filed by Atty. Amador P. Luna On September 16, 2009
intimating that he is not the counsel of the respondents-appellant is hereby noted.
WHEREFORE, respondents motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED for
lack of merit.
No further motion of similar nature shall be entertained.
SO ORDERED.