Republic of the Philippines
Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. III
City of San Fernando, Pampanga
***
MR. E
Complainant,
- versus- NLRC CASE NO. RAB-lll-12-34567-89
ABC CORPORATION,
MR. A-President, and
MR. C- HR Head
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------x
RESPONDENT’S REJOINDER
Respondents, through the undersigned counsel, unto the Honorable
Office, respectfully submit the following comments by way of Rejoinder to the
Complainant’s Reply, as follows:
Contrary to the complainant’s contention, he,
in truth and in fact, started his work at ABC
Corporation on March 1, 2003, with a monthly
salary of 14,046.00.
1. In his reply, particularly in paragraph 1, the complainant stated that he
started his work at ABC Corporation as helper in April 15, 2000, then as shop
man at the time of filing of complaint with a monthly salary of P10,000.00.
However, the complainant actually started his work at ABC Corporation
on March 1, 2003, with a monthly salary of 14,046.00. As the complainant has
requested in his position paper, attached herewith are the pertinent personnel
files such as his payrolls from the year 2000 at the time of the filing of the
complaint, and is marked as “EXHIBIT A”.
Contrary to the complainant’s contention,
he was never constructively dismissed because
he voluntarily resigned from his work.
2. It is worth noting that the respondents also deny the allegation
contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 that state that he was not allowed to return
and report for work and that he did not resign but was instead constructively
dismissed.
Leading us to the main issue of whether or not there was constructive
dismissal, respondents respectfully maintain that there was none, because the
complainant voluntarily resigned from his work.
It is well settled that bare allegations of constructive dismissal, when
uncorroborated by the evidence on record, cannot be given credence Neither
can it be held that Doble was constructively dismissed because there is no
evidence on record of any act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain
towards him which rendered his continued employment unbearable or forced
him to terminate his employment from ABB, Inc., much less a claim of
demotion in rank or a diminution of pay and other benefits. (Luis S. Doble,
Jr., Petitioner Vs. Abb, Inc./Nitin Desai, G.R. No. 215627)
The company would like to reiterate that it has the handwritten
resignation letter of complainant dated June 11, 2020 in Tagalog dialect. Said
handwritten resignation letter is likewise herein attached and marked as
“EXHIBIT B.”
As held also in the same case of Luis S. Doble, Jr. Vs. Abb, Inc./Nitin
Desai, what is important for resignation to be deemed voluntary is that the
employee's intent to relinquish must concur with the overt act of
relinquishment.
Thus, since from the time of the submission of his resignation letter,
complainant never reported for work and could no longer be located, the same
should be considered as his voluntary act. Thus, respondents respectfully move
for the outright dismissal of complainant's claim of any constructive dismissal.
Contrary to the complainant’s contention,
he is not entitled to 13th month pay, holiday
and rest day pay as these claims were never
included in his position paper.
3. At the outset, respondents would like to point out that a simple
perusal of herein complainant’s pro-forma complaint shows that his causes of
action are: Illegal Dismissal (Constructive), Non-payment of 13 th Month Pay,
Non-payment of Separation Pay and Moral and Exemplary Damages; and
Attorney’s Fee; Non-payment of Holiday and Rest Day, Full Back Wages and
Money claims.
However, in his position paper, the claims raised are only limited to an
allegation of a constructive dismissal, and money claims of moral and
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
As provided in the case of Dee Jay's Inn and Cafe And/Or
Melinda Ferraris V. Ma. Lorina Rañeses, G.R. No. 191825, October 05,
2016,
These verified position papers to be submitted shall cover only
those claims and causes of action raised in the complaint
excluding those that may have been amicably settled, and shall be
accompanied by all supporting documents including the affidavits
of their respective witnesses which shall take the place of the
latter's direct testimony. The parties shall thereafter not be
allowed to allege facts, or present evidence to prove facts, not
referred to and any cause or causes of action not included in
the complaint or position papers, affidavits and other
documents. (Emphases supplied.)
Stated differently, the parties could allege and present evidence to
prove any cause or causes of action included, not only in the
complaint, but in the position papers as well.
And as the Court further explained in Tegimenta Chemical Phils. v.
Buensalida:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
[T]he complaint is not the only document from which the
complainant's cause of action is determined in a labor case. Any
cause of action that may not have been included in the complaint
or position paper, can no longer be alleged after the position
paper is submitted by the parties. In other words, the filing of the
position paper is the operative act which forecloses the
raising of other matters constitutive of the cause of action.
This necessarily implies that the cause of action is finally
ascertained only after both the complaint and position paper
are properly evaluated.
Lastly, as held in the case of Samar-Med Distribution v. National
Labor Relations Commission, the Court held:
The rules of the NLRC require the submission of verified
position papers by the parties should they fail to agree upon an
amicable settlement, and bar the inclusion of any cause of action
not mentioned in the complaint or position paper from the time of
their submission by the parties. In view of this, Gutang's cause of
action should be ascertained not from a reading of his
complaint alone but also from a consideration and evaluation
of both his complaint and position paper.
Thus, respondents respectfully move for the outright dismissal of
complainant's claim for 13th month pay, rest day and holiday pay, and
separation pay due to its non-inclusion in the position paper and as such,
deemed waived.
Contrary to the complainant’s contention,
he is not entitled to separation pay.
4. It should be noted that employees who voluntarily resign from work
are not entitled to separation pay. Philippine laws only grant separation pay to
those who were dismissed from service not due to their own fault or negligence
but for reasons that are beyond their control, i.e. business closure, cessation of
operation, retrenchment (reduction of costs) to prevent losses, etc. Thus, as
stated in the case of Hanford Philippines, Incorporated And Victor Te, vs.
Shirley Joseph, G.R. No. 158251 March 31, 2005)
“It is well to note that there is no provision in the Labor Code which
grants separation pay to employees who voluntarily resign. Under the Code,
separation pay may be awarded only in cases when the termination of
employment is due to: (a) installation of labor saving devices, (b) redundancy,
(c) retrenchment, (d) closing or cessation of business operations, (e) disease of
an employee and his continued employment is prejudicial to himself or his co-
employees, or (f) when an employee is illegally dismissed but
reinstatement is no longer feasible.”
Again, as herein complainant voluntarily resigned from his work, the
award of separation pay cannot be justified.
Contrary to the complainant’s contention,
he is not entitled to moral and exemplary damages.
5. As for his money claims pertaining to moral and exemplary damages,
the respondents maintain its position that moral damages are only recoverable
when the dismissal of an employee is attended by bad faith or fraud or
constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to good
morals, good customs or public policy. Exemplary damages, on the other hand,
are recoverable when the dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or
malevolent manner. (Jonald O. Torreda vs. Investment and Capital
Corporation Of The Philippines, G.R. No. 229881, September 05, 2018)
That, as also held in the case of Globe Telecom, Inc. vs. Florendo-
Flores, 390 SCRA 201, an award of moral damages is not proper where the
dismissal is not shown to be attended by bad faith, or oppressive to labor, or
done in a manner contrary to morals, good custom or public policy.
It should be remembered that in cases before administrative and quasi-
judicial agencies like the NLRC, the degree of evidence required to be met is
substantial evidence, or such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. In a situation where the
word of another party is taken against the other, as in this case, we must rely
on substantial evidence because a party alleging a critical fact must duly
substantiate and support its allegation. (Dee Jay's Inn and Cafe And/Or
Melinda Ferraris V. Ma. Lorina Rañeses, G.R. No. 191825, October 05,
2016)
Thus, for failure to prove with substantial evidence that his alleged
constructive dismissal was attended with bad faith, or oppression to labor, or
was done in any manner contrary to morals, good custom or public policy,
respondents respectfully move for the outright dismissal of complainant's claim
not only of moral but also of exemplary damages.
Lastly, contrary to the complainant’s contention,
he is not entitled to attorney’s fees.
5. Because of the absence of a constructive dismissal, respondents
should also not be made to pay attorney's fees since there is no sufficient
showing of bad faith on their part.
"It is a well-settled principle that even if a claimant is compelled to
litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect the claimant's rights,
attorney's fees may still not be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad
faith could be reflected in a party's persistence in a case other than an erroneous
conviction of the righteousness of his cause." (Moreno vs. San Sebastian
College-Recoletos Manila, G.R. No. 175283, March 28, 2008).
6. Finally, as the Honorable Supreme Court stated in Bagongahasa vs.
Romualdez, G.R. No. 779844, March 23, 2011:
"It may not be amiss to stress that laws which have for their
object the preservation and maintenance of social justice are not
only meant to favor the poor and underprivileged. They apply
with equal force to those who, notwithstanding their more
comfortable position in life, are equally deserving of protection
from the courts. Social justice is not a license to trample on the
rights of the rich in the guise of defending the poor, where no act
of injustice or abuse is being committed against them."
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto
this Honorable Office that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for lack of
merit.
Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed
for.
Done this 6th day of September 2020, City of Malolos, Bulacan.
ATTY. ERNESTO ADRIANO III
ATTY. CHLOE ANNE S. GALITA
Counsels for the Respondents
Bulacan State University
City of Malolos, Bulacan
EXHIBIT A
PAYROLL
123456
NAME : Mr. E PAYROLL
#:
ABC Corporation
MR. E Malolos, Bulacan Total Annual Payment Received
JOB Shopman Pay:
P
14,046.00
March 1, 2003 – March 1, 2004 P168,552
March 1, 2004 – March 1, 2005 P168,552
March 1, 2005 – March 1, 2006 P168,552
March 1, 2006 – March 1, 2007 P168,552
March 1, 2007 – March 1, 2008 P168,552
March 1, 2008 – March 1, 2009 P168,552
March 1, 2009 – March 1, 2010 P168,552
March 1, 2010 – March 1, 2011 P168,552
March 1, 2011 – March 1, 2012 P168,552
March 1, 2013 – March 1, 2014 P168,552
March 1, 2014 – March 1, 2015 P168,552
March 1, 2015 – March 1, 2016 P168,552
March 1, 2016 – March 1, 2017 P168,552
March 1, 2017 – March 1, 2018 P168,552
March 1, 2018 – March 1, 2019 P168,552
March 1, 2019 – March 1, 2020 P168,552
March 1, 2020 – June 11, 2020 P42,138
EXHIBIT B
June 11, 2020
To: MR. A-President
ABC CORPORATION,
Dear Sir/Madam,
Ang sulat po na ito ay para ipabatid sa inyo na ako po ay bibitiw na sa
aking trabaho. Ito po ay dahil sa aking kagustuhan na makauwi ng probinsya
kasama ang aking pamilya, sapagkat ito ang hiling ng aking ina na may sakit.
Bukod pa rito, kinakailangan ko ring asikasuhin an gaming bukirin at
gayundin, ninanais ko rin po makapagpahinga.
Sumasainyo,
Mr. E.
