Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. XI
Davao City

TEODY C. CATIENZA, JR. NLRC RAB-XI-10-01075-18

Complainant,

-versus-

DAVAO DEL NORTE FOR: ILLEGAL

ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE DISMISSALWITH MONEY
(DANECO) AND CLAIMS
ENGR. JEROLD M. OSORIO
-GENERAL MANAGER,
Respondents.

X ---------------------------------------- X

POSITION PAPER

COMES NOW, Complainant, unto this Honorable Office, most

respectfully submit this Position Paper for consideration, as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Complainant, TEODY C. CATIENZA, JR., of legal age,

Filipino, may be served with notices, orders, writs and
processes of this Honorable Office at the Office of Councilor
Pamela A. Librado-Morata, 2/F, Room 203, Sangguniang
Panlungsod Building, San Pedro Street, Davao City, Philippines.

2. Respondent DAVAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

(DANECO), is a non-stock and non-profit cooperative located
at Tagum City, Davao del Norte.

3. Respondent, ENGR. JEROLD M. OSORIO is of legal age, the

general manager of Davao del Norte Electric Coop. and may be
served with notices, orders, writs and processes of this
Honorable Office at the office of the immediately mentioned
Respondent. He is impleaded as one of the Respondents for
being the general manager of Teody C. Catienza, Jr..

4. All parties may sue and be sued.

FACTS OF THE CASE

5. Complainant, TEODY C. CATIENZA, JR., was recruited by

Respondent DAVAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
 (DANECO) and admitted for employment to work as a
Reconnection/Disconnection man since January 5, 2012.
Hereto attached as Annex “A” is the copy of Complainant’
employee identification card;

6. Complainant was reclassified as a probationary employee on

February 2013, and from then on has a monthly salary of
Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Two Pesos
(P13,872.00). Hereto attached as Annex “B” is the copy of
Complainant’s Certificate of Employment;

7. However, on 2014, Complainant was not elevated to the status

of a regular employee, more so, his salary was decreased to
Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00) per day. Despite of this,
complainant stayed as he has no other means to provide for
his family;

8. Complainant asked his employer several times for his

regularization for the reason that he has been working for the
respondent for years and his job in the company is necessary
and desirable to the operation of the business. To
complainant’s disappointment, this was not heeded by the
Respondent;

9. On 2018, Complainant, together with his co-employees filed a

complaint before the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) in Tagum City and prayed that they be reclassified as
regular employees of Respondent. The DOLE answered their
plea and ordered for the regularization of herein Complainant.

10. Complainant became a regular employee on May 2, 2018 and

his annual salary was reverted back to One Hundred Sixty Six
Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Four Pesos (P166,464.00) or
Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Two Pesos
(P13,872.00) a month and is entitled to, among others, the
benefits, allowances and bonuses.

11. However, Complainant did not receive the full amount of his
monthly salary rather Complainant only receives Eight
Thousand Pesos (P8,000.00) of the agreed monthly salary of
Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Two Pesos
(P13,872.00) nor did he receive any of the benefits promised;

12. In the same year, due to unbearable low salary despite being
industrious and devoted, Complainant suffered anxieties and
disheartenment thus, was forced to resign from his treasured
company due to its unbearable work environment;

13. The complainant wasted no time and filed appropriate action

to seek outright justice for himself. An illegal dismissal case
against Respondents was thereafter filed before the office of
NLRC-Davao after efforts to settle the parties proved futile.
 ISSUE/S

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS ARE GUILTY OF

CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL?

WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO HER OTHER

MONETARY CLAIMS?

ARGUMENT AND DISCUSSIONS

Respondents are guilty of constructive dismissal.

In the case of MCMER CORPORATION, INC. VS NLRC, it

was defined that “constructive dismissal is a cessation of
work, because continued employment is rendered
impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a
demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both; or when a
clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an
employer becomes unbearable to the employee.”

The test of constructive dismissal is whether a

reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt
compelled to give up his position under the circumstances. It
is an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it
were not, constructive dismissal is, therefore, a dismissal in
disguise. As such, the law recognizes and resolves the
situation in favor of the employees in order to protect their
rights and interests from the coercive acts of the employer. In
fact, the employee who is constructively dismissed may be
allowed to keep on coming to work

After the foregoing facts, it’s clear that there was a

constructive dismissal because of the acts of the Respondent such
as not paying the Complainant in full but paid his other co-workers
in full. These are badges of constructive dismissal, since it is
apparent that the repeated power tripping and not paying the
Complainant accordingly as committed by the respondents to the
complainant is an adverse working environment rendering it
impossible for the complainant to continue working for his
employer. The complainant could not have given up a job that he
has engaged for in six (6) years unless it has become unbearable
for him to stay therein. Indeed, the complainant felt compelled to
give up his employment.

Furthermore, in Siemens Philippines, Inc. vs. Domingo, the

court have declared that “an employee who is forced to surrender
his position through the employer’s unfair or unreasonable acts
is deemed to have been illegally terminated and such
termination is deemed to be involuntary. Constructive
dismissal does not always involve forthright dismissal or
diminution in rank, compensation, benefit and privileges.
There may be constructive dismissal if an act of clear
discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer
becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it
could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his
continued employment. (Emphasis supplied)

Lastly, in the case of Gan vs. Galderma Philippines, the court

held that “There is involuntary resignation due to the harsh,
hostile, and unfavorable conditions set by the employer. The
test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in
the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up
his employment/position under the circumstances.”

Based on the foregoing, there was indeed, an illegal dismissal.

II. Complainant is Entitled to His Other Monetary Claims.

1. Backwages, in general, are granted on grounds of equity for

earnings which a worker or employee has lost due to his illegal
dismissal. (Torillo vs. Leogardo, G.R. No. 77205, May 27, 1991)

2. Since the Complainant in the case at bar was illegally

dismissed, he is entitled to payment of backwages based on
his salary;

3. As illegally dismissed employee, Complainant is therefore

entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and
other privileges and to full back wages, inclusive of
allowances, plus other benefits or their monetary equivalent
computed from the time their compensation was withheld from
him up to the time of their actual reinstatement. If
reinstatement is no longer feasible, as when the relationship
between the employer and employee has become strained,
payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is in order.
(PERPETUAL HELP CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC. vs
BENEDICTO FABURADA, et. al., G.R. No. 121948, October 8,
2001)

4. Moral damages, as defined in the Civil Code, is recoverable in

labor cases. Moral damages cannot be justified solely upon the
premise that the employer fired his employee without just
cause or due process. Additional facts must be pleaded and
proven to warrant the grant of moral damages under the Civil
Code, these being, to repeat, that the act of dismissal was
attended by bad faith or fraud, or was oppressive to labor,
or done in a manner contrary to moral, good customs, or
public policy; and of course, that social humiliation,
wounded feelings, great anxiety, etc. resulted therefrom.
(NANCY S. MONTINOLA vs PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, G.R. No.
198656, SEPTEMBER 8, 2014)
 5. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of
example or correction for the public good, in addition to the
moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. They
are designed by our civil law to permit the courts to reshape
behavior that is socially deleterious in its consequence by
creating negative incentives or deterrents against such
behavior. In labor cases, the court may award exemplary
damages “if dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive
or malevolent manner.”(NANCY S. MONTINOLA vs PHILIPPINE
AIRLINES, G.R. No. 198656, SEPTEMBER 8, 2014)

6. In view of the foregoing complaint, the Complainant was

compelled to engage the services of herein counsel to protect his
rights. Also, Article 2208 of the Civil Code enumerates the
instances when attorney’s fees can be awarded, and one of
which is when exemplary damages are awarded. (NANCY S.
MONTINOLA vs PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, G.R. No. 198656,
SEPTEMBER 8, 2014)

7. Since Complainant is entitled to exemplary damages, he is

also entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation in the amount of 10% of the total amount of the
claims of Complainant.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most

respectfully prayed of this Honorable Office that a decision be
rendered ordering that the Complainant was illegally dismissed and
is entitled to all money claims mentioned above.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

July 29, 2019, Davao City, Philippines.

TEODY C. CATIENZA, JR.

Assisted by:

Office of Councilor Pamela A. Librado-Morata

2/F, Room 203, SP Building, San Pedro Street, Davao City

By

ATTY. DARWIN A. TENAJA

Counsel for Complainant
PTR No. OR No. 9734415/01-08-2018/Davao City
 IBP No. 025685/12-28-2017/Davao City
Series No. 047-2016/Davao City
ROLL No. 57556 April 2010
MCLE Compliance No. V1-0009825/6-7-2018
Email add: darz_kant@yahoo.com

Copy furnished:

DAVAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOP.

(DANECO) AND
ENGR. JEROLD M. OSORIO
-GENERAL MANAGER,
Respondents
C/O SATUR BAURA LAW OFFICES
2ND FLR., PEYRERAS BLDG.
PIONEER AVENUE, TAGUM CITY
Republic of the Philippines )
City of Davao ) S.S.
x---------------------------------x

VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION

I, TEODY C. CATIENZA, JR., of legal age, Filipino and a

resident of Compostella Valley, Philippines, after having been sworn
to in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:

That I am the Complainant in the above-entitled case. I have

caused the preparation of the foregoing Position Paper. I have read
and understood the same and attest that all statements therein are
true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.

That I have not commenced any suit or proceeding in the

Supreme Court, or any other court, office or tribunal involving the
same issues and the same parties;

That in the event that I come to know of the pendency of any

suit or proceeding involving the same issues between the same
parties, I hereby undertake to inform this Honorable Office within
five days from knowledge thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature

this _________________ 2019 in Davao City, Philippines.

TEODY C. CATIENZA, JR.

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ______________

2019 in Davao City, Philippines.

Doc. No. __________ ;

Page No. __________ ;
Book No. __________ ;
Series of 2019.