1

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Quezon CIty

LEO B. ESCALANTE Jr.,

Complainant,

-versus- NLRC RAB V CASE NO. 14556

CORONA VENTURES OFFICES, INC.,

JACK ANINO, President,
JOSEF REYES, Human Resource Manager,
Respondents.
x---------------------------x

POSITION PAPER FOR THE COMPLAINANT

COMPLAINANT by the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable

Labor Arbitration Office, most respectfully submits this position paper and
avers the following to wit:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Consequently, the complainant filed the present complaint before this

Honorable Labor Arbitration Office last March 2, 2020 specifically praying
for reinstatement and claiming for payment of backwages, moral, nominal and
exemplary damages.

THE PARTIES

Complainant Leo B. Escalante (hereinafter referred to as complainant

Leo) is a of legal age, Filipino, single and a resident of Lot 2, Quimpo, Davao City
He can be served with notices, orders, resolutions and other processes of this
Honorable Labor Arbitration Branch at the address of his undersigned counsel.
Respondent CORONA VENTURES OFFICE, INC. (hereinafter
Referred to as respondent Corona Ventures Offices) Is a Philippine
corporation operating as a recruitment agency engaged in outsourcing and
placement of various positions to different companies. It may be served with
summons, orders, resolutions and other processes of this Honorable Office at
3rd floor Blue Bldg, Roxas Ave, Davao City

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. On May 12, 2015, the parties entered into an Employment Contract for
complainant Leo as a security guard in Corona Ventures Offices,
Davao City Branch under the following terms, to wit:

 That the complainant shall be employed for two years beginning

from May 2015 to May 2020.
 That the complainant shall receive a basic monthly salary of Php
12, 500.00, exclusive of overtime pay.
 That the complainant shall render full eight-hour shift from
Mondays to Fridays, from 7:00 AM until 4:00 PM.
 That the complainant’s post is subject to monthly reassignment
subject to the discretion of the Human Resources Department,
Main Office (Davao City Branch).

2. On his first month complainant Leo was assigned in Davao City

Branch, on his second month at Tagum Branch, on his third month at
Panabo South Branch and on his fourth month back to Davao City
Branch.

3. Normally, the notice of reassignment is given to all security guards one

week prior to transferring to another branch. But on his supposed to be
fifth month, he did not receive such notice of reassignmen
 4. Immediately, he asked the security officer in charge but he was not
given any valid explanation, further stating that he only disseminated
what was given to him by the HR department, Main Office.

5. On the fifth month of the complainant, Leo, knowing that he was

not assigned in any branch of Corona Ventures Offices, went to the HR
Department to ask where he should render his post. He talked with the
available HR personnel in the office. According to the latter, he cannot
answer any of the complainant’s questions as he is not in charge with
the monthly reassignment of security guards, and that he would just set
an appointment for the herein complainant and the HR Manager.

6. The HR personnel did not actually gave a specific date and told the
complainant to follow up the said appointment as the HR Manager is
quite busy with the interviews of the applicants.

7. From October 2015 until April 2016, the complainant was not given
any post. Likewise, he did not receive any salary the entire seven
months. Leo did not fail to follow up his meeting with HR manager
as advised by the HR personnel. However, his request to talk with the
HR Manager was not granted.

8. For a long period of time, the complainant has no other means to

produce income to sustain his daily living; thus, results to his financial
struggle.

9. Complainant, Leo decided to seek the assistance of the Commission

regarding his floating status of employment with the respondent
employer, Corona Ventures Offices.

PROPOSED ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

1. Whether or not the complainant was illegally dismissed.

2. Whether or not the complainant is entitled to reinstatement.
3. Whether or not the complainant is entitled to payment of backwages,
moral, nominal and exemplary damages.

DISCUSSION / ARGUMENTS

Complainant Leo thru undersigned counsel respectfully submits in

the affirmative for all the issues.
 4

THE COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALY DISMISSED

BY WAY OF CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL.

The complainant in this case was illegally dismissed thru constructive

dismissal. Constructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work
because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or
unlikely as when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or when a
clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes
unbearable to the employee leaving the latter with no other option but to quit
(The University of Immaculate Conception v. NLRC, G.R. No. 181146,
January 26, 2011).

In the instant case, the complainant has was not given any definite
answer as to why he was not given his new post; nor shall he was given his
monthly basic salary as stipulated in the contract within the span of seven
months. The HR Manager did not even bother to explain his current status and
at least advise if he will be still given a post on the next months. It cannot be
denied that his employment has been rendered impossible, unreasonable, or
unlikely.

Inasmuch as the illegal dismissal is concerned, Article 277 (b) of the

Labor Code specifically requires the employer to furnish the worker or
employee sought to be dismissed with two written notice, i.e., a notice which
apprises the employee of the particular acts or omission for which his
dismissal is sought, and a subsequent notice which informs the employee of
the employer’s decision to dismiss him (Kiamco vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 129449,
June 29, 1999). In the present case, any of such notices was not received by
the complainant.

It must be borne in mind that the basic principle in termination cases is

that the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is
for just and valid cause, and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the
dismissal was not justified and, therefore, was illegal (Polymedic General
Hospital v. NLRC, G.R. No. 64190, January 31, 1985, 134 SCRA 420; and
also Article 277 of the Labor Code).

THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED

TO REINSTATEMENT.

Article 279 of the Labor Code provides as follows:

An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to

reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and
to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits
 5

or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation

was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

The present case unjustly and constructively terminates the

complainant without justifiable ground. Hence, he is entitled to the
reinstatement pursuant to the Labor Code.

THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF

BACKWAGES, MORAL, NOMINAL AND EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES.

Evidently, the respondents violated the statutory right of the herein

complainant pursuant to the Article 279 of the Labor Code.

In the case of MCMER CORPORATION, INC. vs. NLRC (G.R. No.

193421 , June 4, 2014), as regards to constructive dismissal, the award of full
backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, moral, exemplary and
nominal damages is in order pursuant to Article 279 of the Labor Code.
Furthermore, in the case of Lim vs. NLRC (GR No. 79907 March 16, 1989),
the Supreme Court uphold the award of moral as well as exemplary damages
in view of the bad faith attendant to the treatment of the employee. In the case
of Jenny Agabon and Virgilio Agabon vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 158693,
November 17, 2004), for illegal dismissal committed by the employer, they
were ordered to indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory right
which warrants the indemnity in the form of nominal damages.

The foregoing facts provided that the complainant is deemed proper to

receive the damages prayed for due to illegal dismissal by way of constructive
termination.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that

judgment be issued declaring that the complainant has been ILLEGALLY
DISMISSED by way of CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL by the respondents
and that the complainant is entitled to REINSTATEMENT.

FURTHER, it is respectfully prayed that the respondents be ordered to

pay or issue to the complainant, as the case may be:

1. BACKWAGES from the date of his constructive dismissal on October

2015 up to the time he is REINSTATED to his former position without
loss of seniority and other benefits.
 6

2. MORAL DAMAGES of P50, 000.00.

3. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES of P100, 000.00.

4. NOMINAL DAMAGES of P10, 000.00.

FINALLY, the complainant respectfully pays for such and other reliefs as
may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.

Most respectfully submitted.

Davao City, Philippines. March 14, 2020.

LEO B. ESCALANTE
Complainant/s

ATTY. ERICK JAY N. INOK

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Notary Public / Roll of Attorneys No. 420696
Notarial Commission Serial No. 2019-420-2020
Commission Expires on December 31, 2020
IBP No. 030524; 01/10/2020; Davao City
PTR No. 1760152C; 01/04/2020; Davao City
MCLE Compliance No. VI–0012697 – 09/19/2019
Tel Nos. (082) 225-2066; (082) 241-2945
Email Address: ERICKSKIE23@yahoo.com
Legal Office, Commission on Audit R.O XI, Davao City

COPY FURNISHED:

CORONA VENTURES OFFICES, INC.

Jade Building,
West Avenue,
Davao City

ATTY. RONALD CHIU

Counsel of the Respondents
7th Floor Opal Building,
Roxas Avenue,
Davao City
 EXPLANATION

Copies of the foregoing Position Paper are being filed and serviced through
personal service.

ATTY. ERICK JAY N. INOK

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Notary Public / Roll of Attorneys No. 420696
Notarial Commission Serial No. 2019-420-2020
Commission Expires on December 31, 2020
IBP No. 030524; 01/10/2020; Davao City
PTR No. 1760152C; 01/04/2020; Davao City
MCLE Compliance No. VI–0012697 – 09/19/2019
Tel Nos. (082) 225-2066; (082) 241-2945
Email Address: ERICKSKIE23@yahoo.com
Legal Office, Commission on Audit R.O XI, Davao City