Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City
EDSIL VESTIL BACALSO et al.,
Complainants/Appellants,

-versus-
NLRC NCR CASE NO. 04-04886-13
Labor Arbiter: Alberto Dolosa
INSTITUTE FOR POLITICAL and
ELECTORAL REFORM et al,
Respondents/Appellees.
x----------------------------------------------------x
COMMENT
COMES NOW respondents/appellees, by the undersigned counsel,
unto the Honorable Labor Commission, belie and refute the allegations of
the complainants/appellants and thereafter state:

1. Respondents/appellees reiterate their position that:

a) The most significant issue raised by the complainants that they

were dismissed from their employment has already became moot
and academic;

b) As stated in par. 21 of the respondent’s Position Paper:

“…On February 2, 2013, the Board of Trustees of

IPER met for purposes of discussing the problems of the
institute and resolved to “revert to status quo ante” the
status of all IPER’s personnel and staff. Thus, on
February 13, 2013, Casiple wrote all personnel and staff
of IPER a Memorandum telling them that:

“…They are to return to work in the Institute

starting Monday. February 18, 2013, with full
regular status as an employee and with full salary
based on their previous monthly salary as of
December 31, 2012.”

(Photocopy of the said letter is attached herein as Annex “1” to

from an integral part hereof);

c) This matter is confirmed by the complainants in par. 5.5 of their

Position Paper where they admitted that:

“…Both complainants were present during the

Board meeting held on 2 February 2013, where the
status quo ante order was issued. After the Board
meeting, Board Member Erwin Lara and Board Acting

1
 President Noel Medina talked to the complainants and
told them to go back to work on Monday, February 4,
2013..”

d) In their very own admissions, complainants acknowledged that no

less than the Acting President of the respondent Institute for
Political and Electoral Reform (IPER for short) was the one who
talked to them to return to their work as early as February 4, 2013;

e) Clearly, complainants cannot claim illegal dismissal under this

situation;

f) Complainants’ attempt to create an impression that they were

constructively dismissed because the gates of IPER was locked on
February 4 and 5 2013 is tenuous;

g) Assuming without admitting, that this is true, then what the

complainants should have done is to report this matter to the
President of IPER so that he can take action and protect their
rights;

h) IPER is a legal entity created and existing by virtue of the laws of

the Philippines which is run by its Acting President as its
administrative head;

(Photocopy of IPER’s registration before the Security and

Exchange Commission is attached herein as Annex “2” to form an
integral part hereof);

i) If IPER’s Acting President is of the position that complainants are to

return to their work then nobody else can tell them that they cannot;

j) The case of Superstar Security vs. NLRC (April 3, 1980, 184 SCRA
74) can very well be cited on this issue where the Supreme Court
discussed the necessity for an employee to confirm from the top
management if indeed they were dismissed or not;

k) Below is the detailed discussion of the Supreme Court, to wit:

“ Both the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter found no

clear proof that petitioner had in fact dismissed respondent
security guards.

Mercado based his claim of illegal dismissal only on

the statement of the officer in charge Mr. Vecido that he
had not been assigned to any post. Similarly.

Somosot relied merely on the verbal information

relayed to him that he had been terminated.
Oliver’s belief that he had been illegally dismissed
was founded on the telegram from the petitioner requiring
him to explain his absence without leave which he
received on March 29,1990.

2
 None of them exerted efforts to confirm from
petitioner’s office whether they had in fact been
dismissed”. (Underscoring supplied)

In the case of Indophil Acrylic Manufacturing

Corporation vs. NLRC, where private respondent filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal against his employer after
he was prevented by the company guards to enter the
premises on the ground that he had resigned, the Court
which held that private respondents was not illegally
dismissed stated:

The present case, which has lasted for almost four

(4) years could have been avoided had private
respondent made previous inquiry regarding the veracity
of Mr. Gaviola’s instruction and not simply relied on the
bare statement of the company guard.

Private respondent should have been more vigilant

of his rights as an employee because stake was not only
his position but also his means of livelihood.

Furthermore, petitioner denied the allegation that it

terminated respondent security guard’s employment
without just cause and even alleged that respondent
guards abandoned their employment.

Thus, absent any showing of an overt or positive act

proving that petitioner had dismissed Mercado, Somosot
and Oliver, their claim of illegal dismissal cannot be
sustained.”

l) Similar to the complaints by the employees in Indophil Acrylic

Manufacturing Corporation vs. NLRC, complainants alleged that
they too were prevented from entering the company premises;

m) Again, assuming without admitting that this is true, it bears upon

them to verify from top management i.e, the Acting President, to
confirm whether or not that this action is authorized and to
ascertain whether or not the same is an act of dismissal;

n) For they may be a plausible explanation on why the gates of IPER

was locked on February 4 and 5, 2013 which does not pertain to
the complainant’s reporting for work;

o) In reality, there is not a grain of truth on this assertion by the

complainants that the doors of IPER were locked to keep them out;

p) For this would have meant that the whole office of IPER had been
shut downed, its operation paralyzed and its other employees told
to stop working;

3
q) The truth of the matter is that IPER’s office did not shut down on
February 4 and 5 of 2013, the days when the complainants
allegedly were locked out;

r)According to Jose Casiguran Jr , a driver at IPER::

“…Sarado pa po ang gaming opisina noong

Pebrero February 4, 2013 ng bago mag alas nuwebe ng
umaga., Toong dumating kami ng aking asawa sa
opisina ng ika siyam (9:0O)) ng umaga baka po dumating
si Mr. Edsil Bacalso at Ms. Rachelyn Malangen Hupping
bago kami dumating;.

February 5, 2013, sa araw na ito dumating ako ng

opisina ng ika anim at labing limang minoto (6:15) ng
umga. At sa mga susunod na sandali ako ay nag hugas
ng sasakyan sa labas ng gate ng opisina. Habang akoy
nag huhugas ng sasakyan ay dumating sina Mr. Edsil
Bacalso at Ms. Rachelyn Malangen Hupping, at tinanong
ako kung bakit sarado pa ang opisina hindi daw tuloy sila
makapasok at ang sabi ko naman sa kanila na alam nyo
naman na wala akong susi sa opisina at hintay hintayin
mo si Ric at darating na iyon, at napansin ko rin kay Mr.
Edsil Bacalso na parang nag mamadali at di mapalagay
ikot ng ikot at hanggang sa mawala na sila sa aking
paningin iyon pala’y umalis na sila. Ilang minoto siguro
ang nakalipas saka naman dumating si Mr. Ricardo
Villete na kanyang hinahanap o tinatanong at naikwento
ko nga kay Mr. Villete na dumating nga sila sa opisina…”

(Photocopy of his sworn statement is attached herein as Annex

“3” to form an integral part hereof);

s) The plausible explanation as to the reason why the complainants

were locked out on February 4 and 5 2013 is that they arrived too
early or before the office opened;

t) This is also the explanation of Ricardo A. Villete, a cashier of IPER

who narrated:

“.. Noong sinasabi nilang pumunta sila noong

Pebrero 4 or 5, 2013 ay may nadatnan silang isang tao
sa labas, ang driver na kasalukuyang naghuhugas ng
sasakyan mga pasado alas siete (7:00) ng umaga at ang
tanong sa driver bakit daw sarado pa ang opisina gayong

4
 wala pa namang ika walo ng umaga (8:00)am na oras ng
pasok opisina. At ng dumating ako ng before 8:00 am
naikwento nga sa akin ng driver na dumating si Mr. Edsil
Bacalso at alam ko rin na palagi silang maaga noon kasi
naghahatid sila ng kanilang mga anak na eskwela sa
Claret na malapit lang dito sa opisina. At napansin rin ng
driver na si Mr. Edsil Bacalso ay parang hindi mapalagay
lakad ng lakad at ikot ng ikot daw hanggang sa biglang
mawala sa kanyang paningin at saka naman ako
dumating at naisalaysay nga ng driver sa akin ang
pangyayari.

u) It is also this witness who attests that the office of IPER remained
open and operational by saying:

“.. At pang huli siguro mula noong Enero 7, 2013 ay ni

hindi nawawalang tao sa opisina at sinisiguro ko araw ng
pasok 5 times a week ay palaging may tao ang opisina…
“

(Photocopy of his sworn statement is attached herein as Annex

“4” to form an integral part hereof);

v) Simply put, either the complainant’s misinterpreted the situations

of IPER’s having a locked gate at an early time to be a sinister
move to lock them out or they are just making mountains out of
molehill

w) Either way this misinterpretation etc., is certainly not an illegal

dismissal;

x) As to the allegations of complainant Hupping that company files

and records entrusted to her was taken from her filing cabinet
without notifying her, this can be easily explained by the fact that
she made herself scarce for the period February 4, 2013 until
February 18, 2013;

y) On par. 5, 6 ,2 of complainant’s Position Paper, complainant

Hupping alleged that:

“…Complainant Hupping reported for work

on February 4 and 5, 2013 also to find the office
locks changed, so she was unable to report to work
despite the instruction of the Board. Then on
February 18, 2012, she was informed that she can
collect her salary for January 2013. upon arrival at
the office, she noticed that even the locks of the

5
 door at the staff room were also replaced and the
room of the executive director has been locked,
too. She also found that her files, as well as other
personal files, were taken from her filing cabinet,
and she was not even notified that the filing cabinet
will be opened, and the files taken. Records and
other files which she was accountable for were
missing. This bothered her a lot because these
documents were entrusted to her safekeeping for
the past 13 years and not once was her capacity
and integrity questioned nor doubted. It was then
that she realized that the respondent Executive
Director really did not want her back in the office.
This prompted her to write her a letter to the Board,
which is reproduced hereunder…”

z) Naturally she could have not been informed of what is happening

in the Institute for she was absent for the period February 4 to 18,
2013;

aa) There is nothing uncanny in this for the Institute continued its
operation and certainly there is no obligation for it to inform her of
what it is doing during her absence;

bb) All told, the complainants tries to weave a tell tale of employees
being despotically treated in flagrant violation of their basic and
fundamental rights;

cc) But the simple truth is, this is just a story of the complainants
having delusions that they were illegally dismissed when they were
not;;

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents prays again for the

dismissal of the instant appeal case for lack of merit in law and in fact.

Quezon City. August 28, 2014

ATTY. PEARLITO B. CAMPANILLA

Suite B 2nd Floor Overland Park Building No. 245
Banawe Street corner Quezon Avenue Quezon City
PTR 7723803 01-18-13 QC
LM IBP 010564 02-03-12 Pasig City
Roll No. 37522
MCLE Compliance No. IV – 0018064, 4-25-13 Pasig City
Copy Furnished:
ATTY. NICOLAS BARRIATOS
Counsel for the Complainant
c/o Unit 305 WEB-JET Building
64 Quezon Avenue, Cor. BMA Avenue,
1100 Quezon City