Republic of the Philippines
Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City
JOY L. SANTILLAN
Complainants,
- versus - NLRC-NCR CASE NO. 04-00472-21
MATRIX CORPORATE SECURITY SERVICES,INC.
/FRANCIS PASION, JOSE SIMEON
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
RESPONDENT, through counsel, before this Honorable Office,
most respectfully submits this Position Paper, and in support
thereof, respondents hereby state the following:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
1. In Illegal Dismissal Cases, it has been a time honored
rule that it is the Employee, or the complainant who has the burden
of proof in establishing the fact of his dismissal. The absence of any
shall warrant the dismissal of the complaint. As held in the case of
Eyana vs. Philippine Transmarine Carriers 1, it was held;
“It has been oft-repeated that a party alleging a critical fact
must support his allegation with substantial evidence, and
any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot
stand as it will offend due process”
1
748 SCRA 429
2. In addition, as held in the case of Atieza vs Saluta 2
“Before the employer is obliged to prove that the dismissal
was legal, the employee must first establish by substantial
evidence the fact of his dismissal from service. If there is no
dismissal, then there can be no question as to the legality or
illegality thereof”
3. The Supreme Court has time and again pronounced that,
the complaining party must first prove the fact of their dismissal
with substantial evidence. The absence or lack thereof will warrant
the dismissal of the complaint.
PARTIES
4. ____________________________.(hereinafter referred to as
Respondent) is a corporation duly existing and organized under the
existing laws, with office address at
_____________________________________________________, whose
primary purpose is in engaging in the business of warehousing.
However, it may be served with summons and other legal processes
through its counsel at 315 CMI Building Commonwealth Avenu,
Tandang Sora, Quezon City
5. ____________________________________________
(hereinafter referred to as Complainant), of legal age, and with
residence at _____________________________________________, where
he may be served with summons and other legal processes.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
2
GR No. 233413, July 17, 2019
WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT WAS CONSTRUCTIVELY
DISMISSED FROM EMPLOYMENT
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS
THE COMPLAINANT WAS NOT
DISMISSED FROM EMPLOYMENT
6. The Supreme Court had consistently held, that :
“The law in protecting the rights of the laborers
authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of
the employer. While the Constitution is committed to
the policy of social justice and the protection of the
working class, it should not be supposed that every
labor dispute would be automatically decided in
favor of labor. Management also has its rights which
as such are entitled to respect and enforcement in
the interest of simple fair play.”(Mercury Drug
Corporation vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 75662, September
15, 1989).
7. As mentioned in the above jurisprudence, the
Constitution is committed in the policy of social justice, and as
such, any labor dispute should not be automatically be ruled in
favor of the laborer.
8. In this particular cases, there was neither termination
nor dismissal. The complainant was merely suspended from work,
as held in the case of St. Lukes Medical Center, Inc vs Sanchez 3, it
was held;
3
GR No. 212054, March 11, 2015
“Among the employer's management prerogatives is
the right to prescribe reasonable rules and
regulations necessary or proper for the conduct of its
business or concern, to provide certain disciplinary
measures to implement said rules and to assure that
the same would be complied with. At the same time,
the employee has the corollary duty to obey all
reasonable rules, orders, and instructions of the
employer”
9. Application of facts to the law,
10. In the case of LNS International vs. Padua4, the Court
pronounced that:
“Bare and unsubstantiated allegations do not
constitute substantial evidence and have no
probative value”
11. Moreover, as held in the case of Jesus G. Reyes,
vs. Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc., Eye Referral Center and
Manuel B. Agulto5, the court ruled that:
“It is a basic rule of evidence that each party must
prove his affirmative allegation.16 If he claims a
right granted by law, he must prove his claim by
competent evidence, relying on the strength of
his own evidence and not upon the weakness of
that of his opponent.17”
12. The burden of proof is on the complainant as he is the
one alleging a critical fact and therefore, he must support the same
with substantial evidence. As held in the case of Mehitabel,
Inc., vs.Jufhel L. Alcuizar6, to wit:
4
G.R. No. 179792, March 5, 2010
5
G.R. No. 189255, June 17, 2015
6
G.R. No. 228701-02, December 13, 2017
“Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. The
burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on
one who denies. A party alleging a critical fact must
support his allegation with substantial evidence, for
any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation
cannot stand without offending due process. 17 And
in illegal termination cases, jurisprudence had
underscored that the fact of dismissal must be
established by positive and overt acts of an
employer indicating the intention to dismiss 18 before
the burden is shifted to the employer that the
dismissal was legal.19”
13. Thus, there is nothing to support his claim that he was
dismissed. As held in the case of Doctor and Lao Jr. vs NII
Enterprises and/or Ignacio (GR 194001, Nov. 22, 2017;
“In labor cases, as in other administrative and
quasi-judicial proceedings, the quantum of proof
required is substantial evidence, defined as ‘that
amount of relevant evidence, which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion.’ The burden of proof rests upon the
party who asserts the affirmative of an issue.
“The Court recognizes the rule that in illegal
dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of
proving that the termination was for a valid or
authorized cause. However, there are cases
wherein the facts and the evidence do not
establish prima facie that the employee was
dismissed from employment. Before the employer
must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal
was legal, the employee must first establish by
substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from
service. If there is no dismissal, then there can be
no question as to the legality or illegality thereof.
x x x
“x x x The Court reiterates the basic rule of
evidence that each party must prove his affirmative
allegation, that mere allegation is not evidence. The
Court also stresses that the evidence to prove the
fact of the employee’s termination from
employment must be clear, positive and
convincing. Absent any showing of an overt or
positive act proving that respondents had
dismissed petitioners, the latter’s claim of illegal
dismissal cannot be sustained – as the same would
be self-serving, conjectural, and of no probative
value.”
14. As to the payment of separation pay, in a long line of
cases, it has been held that Separation Pay will not be awarded
when there is no finding of dismissal, illegal or otherwise. Citing
again the above-mentioned case:
“Worthy of emphasis is that the award of separation
pay is likewise inconsistent with a finding that
there was no illegal dismissal. Separation pay
becomes due if an employee is dismissed without
just cause and without due process and is
therefore entitled to backwages and
reinstatement. (Emphasis supplied)
xxx
However, the undisputed factual finding is that there
was no dismissal to speak of, and therefore, we
cannot find the legal basis of his entitlement to such
separation pay and backwages. As we have previously
pronounced, in a case where the employee's failure to
work was occasioned neither by his abandonment nor
by a termination, the burden of economic loss is
not rightfully shifted to the employer; each party
must bear his own loss.17Hence, based on the
circumstances of this case, the employer should not
be made to suffer the consequences of the employee's
failure to report for duty. (Emphasis supplied)
xxx
By way of reiteration, we declare that in labor cases,
where there is neither termination nor abandonment
involved, there is no occasion to grant separation pay
and backwages, nor to allow collection of any other
monetary claims absent evidence to substantiate the
same. The employer and the employee do not have any
obligation one to the other.”
15. Moreover, it has been consistently held that in quasi-
judicial proceedings, what is necessary is substantial evidence to
support a claim. In the case of Maria Vilma G. Doctor and Jaime
Lao, Jr., vs. NII Enterprises and/or Mrs. Nilda C. Ignacio 7 the Court
defined substantial evidence as the quantum of proof required in
labor cases, viz:
“In labor cases, as in other administrative and quasi-
judicial proceedings, the quantum of proof required is
substantial evidence, defined as “the amount of
relevant evidence which as reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.” 21 The
burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the
affirmative of an issue.22”
16. In the instant case, complainants claims are all based on
his testimonies and no documentary evidence was presented to
substantiate his claim. Thus, warrants dismissal
PRAYER
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that
the complained be DISMISSED for lack of legal and actual basis
Other reliefs, just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
7
G. R. No. 194001, November 22, 2017
Quezon City, Philippines, September 22, 2021.
JOHN LERRIE I. TORRE
PTR No. 1042057/ February 23, 2021/ Quezon City
IBP No. 015345/ Lifetime Member/ Quezon City
Roll of Attorney’s No. 65525
MCLE No.VI-0029704
Valid until April 14, 2022
E-mail Address: lerrietorks@gmail.com
Copy Furnished
Joy L. Santillan
367 Durian St., Area 9-A, Brgy Pasong
Tamo, 1100, Quezon City
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING
I, Francis C. Pasion, Filipino, of legal age, married and with an office address at
Lot 18 Block 1, Jordan Plaines III, Barangay Pasong Putik Proper, Novaliches,
Quezon City, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, hereby state that:
1. I am the duly authorized representative of the Matrix Corporate Security
Services, Inc., in the instant case
2. I have caused the preparation and filling of the foregoing Position Paper
3. I have read all the allegations contained herein and all the averments are
true and correct based on my personal knowledge and authentic records;
4. That the instant pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay,
or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
5. That the factual allegations herein have evidentiary support or, if
specifically so identified, will likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for discovery; and
6. I have not commenced any action or filed any petition involving the same
subject matter, or issues in any court, tribunal or agency; to the best of my knowledge,
no such action is pending therein; and if I should learn that the same or similar action
has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within five (5) calendar days from
such knowledge to this Honorable Court.
_____________________
FRANCIS C. PASION
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of _______, 2021 in ________;
Affiant exhibiting to me his _______________ with No. ______________
Doc. No.____
Page No.___ Notary Public
Book No.___
Series of 2021
SECRETARY’S CERTIFICATE
I, John Lerrie I. Torre, of legal age, Filipino, married, with office address
at CMI building, 315 Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, after having been
sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose, state and CERTIFY that:
1. I am the Assistant Corporate Secretary of Stock Care Cargo and
Warehousing, Inc., (the “Corporation”) with office and business
address at Lot 2-A, Quirino Highway, Brgy Sto Cristo, City of San
Jose Del Monte, Bulacan;
2. In a meeting of the Board of Directors of the corporation held on May
25, 2021 at which there was a quorum and acting as such, the
following resolution/s were enacted, passed and approved:
“RESOLVED, as it is hereby Resolved, that the Board of
Directors have hereunto authorized RUDY M. MALACA to sign
the verification and certification against forum shopping in the
case of “John Paul Ocamp vs Pepsi Cola with Case No. NLRC-NCR-Case
No. 09-00276-20
3. That the foregoing resolution is duly entered into the Minutes of
Meetings of the Board, and the same remain in full force and effect.
Done in Quezon City, this ______of ____________, 2021
Atty. John Lerrie Torre
Assistant Corporate Secretary
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ________________ affiant
exhibiting to me IBP Card with No.65525
Doc No. _______
Page No. _______
Book No. ______
Series of 2021
