REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

REGIONAL ARBITRATION BRANCH NO. III
CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA

OLIDAN S. EMPLOYEE,
Complainant,

-versus- NLRC CASE NO.

RAB III-123456
ER INDUSTRIES PHIL. INC.,
Respondent.
x----------------------------------------
--x

Respondents Rejoinder

COMES NOW, respondent ER INDUSTRIES PHIL.

INC. (hereinafter ER), represented by Ms. Iyakin, its Human
Resource Officer (hereto attached is the Secretarys
Certificate vesting in her the authority to file this Rejoinder),
through the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable
Office, most respectfully submits this Rejoinder with the
following averments:

With the state of being repetitive but only to prove a

point, Employees (hereinafter Employee) imputation of bad
faith on the part of the respondent company relating to his
dismissal does not have the badge of truth. The statements
of Sumbungan, Iyakin and Andresbelie the allegations of
Employee. There is a cause for his dismissal and there is
observance of due process.

Faced with a problem concerning two of its employees

in the company, the management has all the rights within its
power to impose discipline. Such is the managements
prerogative. Iyakin, the Human Resource Officer, complain to
the management of being disrespected by Employee. The
management, in turn, without favoring anyone, took all the
measures necessary to settle the matter.

Employee was duly served several times in various

instances with the very due process that he is now
complaining of not having afforded with. He ignored every
chance given to him to explain his side. Er does what is
required of it.
 Employee may not antagonize the company for doing
the right thing. The notices given to him properly apprised
him of the charges against him. In the meeting where he was
called, he unjustifiably failed to give a statement to the
management. He knew very well what he did is a serious
misconduct. His subsequent refusal to help the company
settle the matter once and for all is only a showing that such
an employee deserves to be disciplined. The company was
left with no choice but to dismiss him for his insubordination
and misconduct. He even reported to work to the company
everyday after the incident. He talks to his co-employees. He
is with the company for quite sometime, he is not a stranger
to the management. His claim of the ignorance of the
charges against him is just an excuse on his part and an
attempt to misled this Honorable Office. Reason tells us that
he acted not in good faith.

It may be worth telling that the circumstance, which

leads to this sad incident, is the sick leave filed in connection
with the accident met by Employee. The Human Resource
Department processed all the requirements necessary to
obtain the benefit to pay Employee the four (4) days that he
is absent. However, due to the other documents required by
the SSS, the benefit was not given to him immediately.
Unfortunately, the company has no control over the grant of
leave by the SSS. He is agitated because of this. He is mad
for the late grant of the of the four days sick leave. He is
blaming Iyakin. He made insulting, offensive and hurtful
remarks to her. He is unreasonable and is not towards
creating harmonious work environment in the company.
Such is prejudicial to the best interest of all the workers.

The claim that the case of Asian Design Manufacturing

Corporation v Hon. Deputy Minister of Labor G.R. No. 70552,
May 12, 1986, is not applicable in the case of Employee is
misplaced. Employees misbehavior is similar to the
misbehavior displayed by the employee in the said case. In
fact, Employees acts were far more serious. His filing of this
complaint was made in bad faith. His words were humiliating
indeed, Er ascertain that such disrespectful attitude towards
a co-employee may never happen again. The company
exerted much effort in clearing the matter and to be fair to
everyone, it tried to ask for an explanation from Employee.
Employees acts however proved that he is not in any way
interested in clearing his name of the charges against him
and is incessantly insisting that he is totally unaware of the
acts that lead to this case.

He suggested to his superior Iyakin that she should just

resign because she cannot immediately give what he asks
2
for. Now, he is fabricating stories. He puts words on other
persons mouth. Andresand Sumbungans Affidavits are the
proof that he is not telling the truth. He went on illegal strike
with the other employees even during the time that this
incident is under investigation by the company.

All these foregoing facts show that Employee is guilty of

serious misconduct. If the behavior and conduct displayed by
Employee may not be said to be serious misconduct, the
company will be at a lost to give a proper term to describe
his actions.

The law in protecting the rights of the laborer

authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the
employer. While the Constitution is committed to the policy
of social justice and the protection of the working class, it
should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be
automatically decided in favor of labor. Management also
has its own rights, which as such are entitled to respect and
enforcement in the interest of simple fair play. Out of its
concern for those with less privilege in life, the Court has
inclined more often than not toward the worker and upheld
his cause in his conflicts with employer. Such favoritism,
however, has not blinded the Court to rule that justice is in
every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of
the established facts and applicable law and doctrine. 1

The complainants claim of Service Incentive Leave

monetized benefit is made in bad faith because they were
already given his respective monetized SIL with his last pay,
pro-rated 13th month pay and tax refund in the amount of six
thousand three hundred sixty-five pesos and seventy-one
centavos (Php 6, 365.71) which Employee Employee refuses
to pay.

The complainants claim for award of moral damages and

exemplary damages is bereft of any factual and legal basis.

VI.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully

prayed unto this Honorable Office that the complaint of

1 Mercury Drug Corporation v NLRC GR No. 75662 September 15, 1989

3
illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages, service incentive
leave benefit and other money claims be dismissed for lack
of merit.

Other reliefs that are just and equitable under the

premises are likewise prayed for.

Floridablanca, Pampanga for City of San Fernando,

Pampanga March 31, 2017.

Law Offices
Counsel for the Petitioners
Address
_________, Pampanga

By:

Atty. Abogado Ako

PTR No. _______ on 01-03-2017
IBP No. _________ on 01-03-2017
Both in Pampanga
Roll No. _______
MCLE No. _________ issued on Oct. 1, 2014

4
 VERIFICATION

I, Iyakin, a resident of _________, Mexico,

Pampanga, after having been duly sworn to in accordance
with law depose and state::

That I am the Human Resource Assistant of

respondent Er in the above entitled Complaint. That I
have caused the preparation of the foregoing Rejoinder.
The contents thereof have been read and translated to
me in the dialect known and understood by me. The
same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief and based on authentic documents.

In WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my

signature this 31st day of March 2017 in Floridablanca,
Pampanga.

Iyakin
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 31st day of

March 2017 at Floridablanca, Pampanga, affiant exhibiting to
me her personal identification documents written below their
signature.

NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No. ___
Page No.___
Book No. __
Series of 2017

5
6