Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Cebu City

Hon. Jermelina Pasignajen-Ay-ad

Labor Arbiter

JAY FROILAN SUAREZ

Complainant
NLRC-RAB-VII-08-880-18
-versus-

LUMAPAS BLANCO LAW OFFICE

Respondent

x---------------------------------------------------/.

REPLY
( To Respondents Position Paper)

COMPLAINANT, thru the undersigned counsel, and unto this

Honorable Labor Court , respectfuly submit this Reply to
Respondents Position Paper.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

1. Contrary to the Respondents narrations in their position paper

that the latter did not to intend to terminate the herein
complainant it can be viewed that when their representative by
the name of Ms. Josephine Annie M. Yu asked the complainant
to go home after serving the latter the Notice to Explain on the
latters comission of offenses in 3 instances that wold merit
termination, said act indirectly implies that the complainant
was dismissed or terminated from service since as stated in the
notice and according to the herein respondent, the complainant

Reply to Respodents Position Paper for NLRC Case No. 08-880-18 1

 already committed offenses that could be subject of a
termination.

2. Also it must be pointed out that the herein respondent did not
sufficiently comply with the Notice and Hearing requirement
as provided in the Article 282 of the Labor Code. As per
respodent they narrated that they already have given the
requisite notice to the complainant to explain her side on why
their should no penalty metted against the latter for committing
the alleged acts that merits the ground for termination.

It can be inferred that under the law one of the instances where
and employer may validly terminate and employee is for just
causes one of which is violation of existing policies and rules
set by the employer. Having realized that the herein
complainant allegedly committed acts that merits termination
said respondent must have already given the complainant
notice to explain why the penalty of dimissal should not be
meted out against the latter and the requisite hearing so that
said issue could be ammicable settled.

Instead the herein Respondent just sent their represetative to

serve to the complainant the Notice to Explain.

3. In Agabon vs. NLRC, the Supreme Court held that:

Procedurally, (1) if he dismissal is based on a just

cause under Article 282, the employer must give the
employee two written notices and a hearing or opportunity
to be heard if requested by the employee before
terminating the employement: a notice specifying the
grounds for which dismissal is sought a hearing or any

Reply to Respodents Position Paper for NLRC Case No. 08-880-18 2

 opportunity to be heard and after hearing or opportunity to
be heard, a notice of the decision to dismiss; and (2) if the
dismissal is based on authorized causes under Articles 283
and 284, the employer must give the employee and the
Department of Labor and Employment written notices 30
days prior to the effectivity of the separation.

Under the twin notice requirement, the employee must be

given two (2) notices before their employment could be terminated:
(1) a first notice to apprise the employees of their fault, and (2) a
second notice to communicate to the employees that their
employment is being terminated. In between the first and the
second notice the employee should be given ahearing or
opportunity to defend themselves personnaly or by counsel of their
choice.

VERIFICATION

I. JAY FROILAN SUAREZ, Filipino of legal age, and a resident

of Villa Teresita Kinasang-an, Pardo, Cebu City, under oath, hereby
depose and say that:

Reply to Respodents Position Paper for NLRC Case No. 08-880-18 3

 1. Iam the Complainant in the above-captioned case, and

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Reply to

Respondents position paper;

3. That I have read and understood the contents thereof; and

4. That the allegations therein are correct and true to the best of
my own knowledge and belief and based on authentic records

JAY FROILAN SUAREZ

Complainant/Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 2nd day of

Ferbruary 2018, in Cebu City, Affiant exhibiting to me his LTO
Driver’s License No. H11-10-000403 (Expiration Date on May 13,
2019) issued by the Land Transportation Office.

____________________
Administering Officer

Doc. No. ___;

Page No.____;
Book No. ___;
Series of 2018

Copy furnished:

NLRC RAB VII

3/F Lim’s Brotherhood Foundation Bldg.,
Osmeña Bloulevard, Cebu City

ATTY. PHILIP MICHAEL C. UY

Reply to Respodents Position Paper for NLRC Case No. 08-880-18 4

Counsel for the Respondent
Lumapas Blanco Law Office
Road 7, North Reclamation Area, Cebu City

Reply to Respodents Position Paper for NLRC Case No. 08-880-18 5