Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DIANE SALVADOR,
Appellee - Complainant,
DANIEL KATIGBAK
Owner, AsianMed,
Appellant-Respondent,
x--------------------------x
MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
JURISDICTIONAL FACTS
2. Thus, appellant-respondent has until May 14, 2017 within which to file
its Memorandum of Appeal, and since May 14, 2017 falls on a Sunday,
appellant – respondent has until May 15, 2017 to file the same. Hence,
this Memorandum of Appeal is filed within the ten- day reglementary
period provided for in Section 1, NLRC Interim Rules on Appeals under
R.A.6715, amending the Labor Code.
1
4. In his Decision1, the Hon. Dela Cruz ruled, to wit:
6. The Hon. Dela Cruz committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering the
above decision and committed serious errors in the findings of facts in
finding that:
ARGUMENTS
7. With all due respect, it was serious error for the Hon. Dela Cruz to have
found that appellee-complainant was illegally dismissed. Appellee-
complainant could not have been illegally dismissed because the
employer show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause.
2
October 1, 2014 was handed to and received by her on the same date.
11. Appellant-respondent merely exercised his right under Art. 286 of the
Labor Code2 to suspend the work of the appellee-complainant. Failure
to provide any written explanation as well as plausible explanation on
the undelivered stocks, overpayment, and unremitted collections as
well as her unauthorized absences from July 16 to September 30,
2014, a Notice of Termination of Employment dated October 1, 2014
was handed to and received by her on the same date. Under the said
provision:
12. In Philippine Industrial Security Agency Corp. vs. Dapiton, et al. (G.R. NO.
127421, December 8, 1999)4, the Supreme Court stated, to wit:
“We stress that Article 286 applies only when there is a bona
fide suspension of the employer's operation of a business or
undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months. In such a
case, there is no termination of employment but only a temporary
displacement of employees, albeit the displacement should not
2
http://www.dole.gov.ph/
3
http://www.dole.gov.ph/
4
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127421.htm
3
exceed six (6) months. The paramount consideration should be the
dire exigency of the business of the employer that compels it to put
some of its employees temporarily out of work.”
14. The absolute lack of evidence to substantiate the claim of dismissal by the
appellant-respondent was glaringly ignored by the Hon. Dela Cruz.
15. The commission of serious errors in the findings of facts by the Hon. Dela
Cruz, if not corrected, would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury
to the appellants-respondents.
And there being no illegal dismissal, they are not entitled to any separation
pay and full backwages.
. PRAYER:
4
Furthermore, the Complaint by complainant-appellee should be dismissed for
being without any factual or legal basis.
All other relief just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Copy furnished:
Atty. Juana Juan
Counsel for the complainant
Public Attorney’s Office
Justice Hall, Bonuan, Tondaligan
Dagupan City
EXPLANATION
Copy of the foregoing MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL was served the counsel for
the complainant through registered mail due to lack of personnel making
personal service impracticable.