1

Republic of the Philippines Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION Regional
Arbitration Branch No. V Quezon City

JOSE L. MANUEL,
Complainant,

-versus- NLRC RAB V CASE NO. _________

JLM RECRUITMENT OFFICES, INC.,

JUANITA MANANSALA, President,
JOHN MIGUEL, 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 June 28, 2018 specifically praying
for payment of backwages, moral and exemplary damages.

THE PARTIES

Complainant Jose L. Manuel (hereinafter referred to as complainant

Manuel) is a of legal age, Filipino, single and a resident of 14 th Avenue, East
Rembo, Makati City NCR 1216. He can be served with notices, orders,
resolutions and other processes of this Honorable Labor Arbitration Branch
at the address of his undersigned counsel.

Page 1 of 11
 Respondent JLM RECRUITMENT OFFICE, INC. (hereinafter
referred to as respondent JLM Recruitment 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
Jade Building, West Avenue, Quezon City NCR 1104.

Respondent JUANITA MANANSALA (hereinafter referred to as

respondent Manansala) is the President of respondent JLM Recruitment
Offices. She is of legal age, Filipino and with office address at Jade
Building, West Avenue, Quezon City NCR 1104 where she may be served
with notices, orders and resolutions of this Honorable Labor Arbitration
Office.

Respondent JOHN MIGUEL (hereinafter referred to as respondent

Miguel) is the Human Resource Manager of respondent JLM Recruitment
Offices. He is of legal age, Filipino and with office address at Jade Building,
West Avenue, Quezon City NCR 1104 where he may be served with notices,
orders and resolutions of this Honorable Labor Arbitration Office.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Complainant was formerly a regular employee as baker of Respondent

Burauen Quality Bread Bakeshop since January 1, 2003. The business undertaking
of the said Respondent is to sell bread to the public which Complainant prepares in
the premises of the Respondent. A copy of the Identification Card issued by the
Respondent to the Complainant is hereto attached as Annex “A” as proof of the
latter’s employment.

The Complainant worked for seven (7) days a week with no rest day or day-
off. He worked for 9 hours per day with no overtime pay. He was also made to
work on holidays without holiday/premium pay, with the exception of the
following holidays for which there was no work, to wit: Christmas day, New Years
day, Good Friday and on December 8, which is the fiesta of Burauen, Leyte.

The starting salary of Complainant was Php 100.00 per day. In the year
2005, this was increased to Php 110.00 per day. Then, in 2006, his daily wage was
increased to Php 115.00. In the year 2007 near the month of December, his daily
wage was increased to Php 120.00 and in the year 2008, his daily wage was again
increased to Php 135.00. In the year 2009, his daily wage was again increased to
Php 140.00 and on January 2010, Complainant’s daily wage was again increased to
Php 150.00 until he was illegally terminated on December 6, 2010. All of the
aforementioned daily wage rates are below the prevailing minimum wage
mandated by law and given effect by the various applicable Wage Orders issued by
the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board – VIII.

However, during paydays on the 15th and on the last day of the month, the
Complainant was made to sign in a blank payroll consisting of two sheets of paper

Page 2 of 11
and then in a separate paper containing the actual amount received as salary.
Hence, it is possible that the Respondent can produce a payroll signed by the
Complainant containing entries of wage which is at par or more than the prevailing
minimum wage as it is easy to fill in the desired entries of the amount of wage on
the blank but pre-signed payroll.

Likewise, Complainant was not given the yearly service incentive leave of
five days with pay in accordance to Article 95 of the Labor Code.

On December 6, 2010, Complainant was verbally terminated without due

process from his work by Dyna, the owner of the Burauen Quality Bread
Bakeshop.

The Complainant was not given his 13th month pay for the year 2010,
although in the previous years, he was given such every December. Likewise, his
salary for the period of December 1-6, 2010 was not given to him.

That as a result of the unjust termination of employment of the

Complainants by the Respondent, the former suffered mental anguish, sleepless
nights, wounded feelings, serious anxiety, moral shock, and social humiliation,
especially concerning the daily sustenance of his family.

In support of the foregoing allegations is the Affidavit of the herein

Complainant dated February 17, 2011 which is attached and made integral part of
this Position Paper as Annex “B”, as well as his verified Complaint dated January
10, 2011 which is on the records of this case.

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 Manuel thru undersigned counsel respectfully submits in

the affirmative for all the issues.

Page 3 of 11
 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:

Page 4 of 11
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

Page 5 of 11
 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

Page 6 of 11
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.

Page 7 of 11
 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.

Quezon City, Philippines. March 2, 2017.

JOSE L. MANUEL
Complainant/s

OFFICE OF THE LEGAL AID

Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Sta. Mesa, Metro Manila, Philippines
Counsel for Complainant

BY
:

________________________________
Roll of Attorneys No. _______
IBP No. __________; __/__/__; ___________
PTR No. __________; __/__/__; ___________
MCLE Compliance No. ___________; __/__/__

Email Address:
________________________
Tel. / Cel. Nos. __________/______________

Page 8 of 11
 Signing under Law Student Practice
Rule (Pursuant to Rule 138-A of the Revised Rules of
Court)

BY
:

JESSICA JOYCE P. PEÑALOSA

Office of the Legal Aid
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Sta. Mesa, Metro Manila, Philippines

Page 9 of 11
 7

Email Address: 1227jessicapenalosa@gmail.com

Tel. / Cel. Nos. : 0935-

5694741

COPY FURNISHED:

JLM RECRUITMENT OFFICES, INC.

Jade Building,
West Avenue,
Quezon City

ATTY. JEREMY L. MANOLO

Counsel of the Respondents
7th Floor Opal Building,
Meralco Avenue,
Pasig City

EXPLANATION

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

Signing under Law Student Practice

Rule (Pursuant to Rule 138-A of the Revised Rules of
Court)

Page 10 of 11
 BY
:

JESSICA JOYCE P. PEÑALOSA

Office of the Legal Aid

Polytechnic University of the Philippines

Sta. Mesa, Metro Manila, Philippines
Email Address: 1227jessicapenalosa@gmail.com

Tel. / Cel. Nos. : 0935-

5694741

Page 11 of 11