REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. III
City of San Fernando, Pampanga
ROSALINA V. DOMINGO,
Complainant,
versus

NLRC CASE No. RAB III 08-21823-14

(Labor Arbiter: Hon. Leandro M. Jose)

MECTAP INTERNATIONAL PLACEMENT SERVICES INC.,

Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
RESPONDENTS, by counsel, unto this Honorable Office,
respectfully state:

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND

RELEVANT ANTECEDENTS
1.
Complainant applied as a Domestic Helper with
respondent MECTAP for its foreign principal in Malaysia. She
was given the proper orientation and made to comply with
the needed requirements.
2.
Complainant agreed that her monthly salary shall
be One Thousand Two Hundred Malaysian Ringgit (RM
1,200.oo), which is equivalent to US$400.oo, and to be paid
in Malaysian Ringgit, as evidenced by the Job Description
duly signed by complainant, a photocopy of which is hereto
attached and marked as Annex A.
3.
Upon submission by complainant to respondents
of her papers and travel documents, complainant signed an
overseas employment contract and the same was processed
by respondent with POEA which eventuallly approved her
papers for deployment to Malaysia;
4.
Complainant
respondents;

did

not

pay

placement

fee

to

5.
On April 29, 2013, respondent deployed
complainant to Malaysia to her agreed employer and at their
agreed monthly salary;
6.
Complainant
was
given
the
package
of
compensation which was agreed upon and as stated in her
overseas employment contract. She was treated well in
terms of food, shelter and dignity, however, complainant ran
away.
7.
Eventually, when complainant and respondent
employer met, they entered into a settlement before the
Office of the Labor Attache, in which they entered into a
compromise agreement to settle their differences.
8.
Respondent employer paid to Complainant her last
salary and other money due her which amounted to in the
total amount of RM 1,700.oo as full and complete payment
of the remaining of her salaries and all her remaining
monetary claims from respondent employer. The receipt
states:
This is to ackonwledge receipt of One Thousand
Seven Hundreds RM (RM 1,700) from AP
SRIMANISA as payment for my salary.
(Signed)
ROSALINA DOMINGO
A photocopy of which is hereto attached and marked as
Annex B.
9.
Complainant received all her salaries and
executed Affidavit of Release, Waiver & Quitclaim.
Complainant stated in her Quitclaims as follows:
I, ROSALINA DOMINGO, of legal age,
Single/Married, Filipino and with Philippine
Address at Rizal, Nueva Ecija, and Malaysian
Address at #1 Jalan SS2/59 Petaling Jaya,
after having been duly sworn to law, depose
and say:
1. That I hereby irrevocably and
absolutely discharge my Malaysian Agency
2

SRIMANISA with business address at Kuala

Lumpur, Malaysia and my Philippine Agency
MECTAP xxxx, its Officers and Staff from any
and all liabilities and obligations arising from
or, connected with my overseas employment;
2. That I have no more claims or
demands, monetary or, otherwise against
said Malaysian Agency SRIMANISA and
Philippine Agency MECTAP, its Officers and
Staff and Employees having been finally
settled to my complete satisfaction;
3. That I agree and undertake to
desist
from
initiating,
instituting
and
prosecuting any suit, action or, proceeding
against said Malaysian Agency SRIMANISA
and Philippine Agency its Officers, Staff and
employees
arising
from
my
overseas
employment;
4. That I understand and accept that
this Affidavit shall constitute and maybe
invoked as total defense in any action or
proceedings
before
NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION
(NLRC)
&
PHILIPPINE
OVERSEAS
EMPLOYMENT
ADMINISTRATION (POEA);
5. That I have read and understood
the contents hereof and no fraud, violence or
intimidation has been employed against any
person;
6. That I am executing this Affidavit
knowingly, willingly and voluntarily to attest
to the truth of the foregoing and for
whatever other legal purposes it may serve;
7. That I fully understand the above
terms and conditions and I sign this Affidavit
freely and voluntarily.
A photocopy of her said Affidavit of Release, Waiver &
Quitclaim is hereto attached and marked as Annex C.

10. On November 28, 2013, complainant returned back

home to the Philippines;
11. After nine (9) months from her arrival, that is, on
August 11, 2014, complainant filed this case before this
Honorable Office apparently disregarding her Quticlaim
before respondents and the Office of the Labor Attache in
Malaysai. Now, she claims ACTUAL illegal dismissal, nonpayment of salary/wages and attorneys fees. Hence, this
position paper.
III. ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT THIS CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED
BECAUSE COMPLAINANT IS GUILTY OF ESTOPPEL AND
LACHES IN FILING THIS CASE AGAINST THE
RESPONDENTS
WHETHER OF
DISMISSAL

NOT

THERE

IS

ACTUAL

ILLEGAL

WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT HAS CAUSE OF

ACTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS
IV. DISCUSSIONS

Basic is the principle that he who is negligent or omitted to

assert a right within a reasonable time is presumed that he has
either abandoned or declined to assert such a right.
This is the same situation in this case. Complainant entered
into a settlement with the respondent and she executed the
Affidavit of Release, Waiver & Quitclaim.
In fact, even after she returned back to the Philippines,
neither did complainant file immediately any complaint for
underpayment of salary nor demand from the respondents her
alleged claims. She waited the lapse of nine (9) months before
coming to this Honorable Office and filed the present complaint.

Jurisprudence on this matter is well-settled. Where a party

sleeps on his rights and allows laches to set in, the same is fatal
to his case (Periquet, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 238
SCRA 697).
Laches had been defined as the failure or neglect for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by
exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier;
it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable
time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it
either has abandoned it or declined to assert it (Olizon vs. Court
of Appeals, 236 SCRA 148).
It is to be noted in this case that complainant was deployed
on April 29, 2013, and after she entered into a settlement with
the employer and receiving consideration thereof, she came back
to the Philippines on November 28, 2014. Immediately after her
arrival, complainant could have filed this case before this
Honorable Office, but she did not, instead, only after the lapse of
nine (9) months, that is, only on August 11, 2014 when she filed
this case before this Honorable Office. This delayed action in filing
this case is fatal to complainants cause of action as LACHES has
already set in.
The law helps the vigilant but not those who sleep on their rights.
For time is a means of destroying obligations and actions, because
time runs against the slothful and contemners of their own rights.
(Gonzales vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 157 SCRA 597, January 29,
1988.).

Laches is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable length of

time to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have
been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a
reasonable time warranting a presumption that the party entitled to
assert it has either abandoned it or has declined to assert it. (Cormero
vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 247 SCRA 291 [1995]; Bailon-Casilao vs.
Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 738 [1988]; Villamor vs. Court of Appeals,
126 SCRA 574 [1988]; Marcelino vs. Court of Appeals, 210 SCRA 444,
447 [1992]; Ching vs. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 9, 17 [1990].)
Laches has also been defined as such neglect or omission to
assert a right taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other
circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate as
a bar in equity. (11 Heirs of Bationg-Lacamen vs. Heirs of Laruan, 65
SCRA 125 [1975]; Victoriano vs. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 19, 24
[1991]; Jacob vs. Court of Appeals, 224 SCRA 189, 196 [1993].)
The Supreme Court ruled in Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court
of Appeals, (264 SCRA 193.),that:
That principle of laches is a creation of equity which, as such, is
applied not really to penalize neglect or sleeping upon one's
right, but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would
result in a clearly inequitable situation. As an equitable defense,
laches does not concern itself with the character of the
defendant's title, but only with whether or not by reason of the
plaintiff's long inaction or inexcusable neglect, he should be
barred from asserting this claim at all, because to allow him to do
so would be inequitable and unjust to the defendant.

The doctrine of laches or stale demands is based

upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the
peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims
and . . . is principally a question of the inequity or
unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be
enforced or asserted.
The time-honored rule anchored on public policy is that relief will
be denied to a litigant whose claim or demand has become
"stale" or who has acquiesced for an unreasonable length of
time, or who has not been vigilant or who has slept on his rights
either by negligence, folly or inattention. In other words, public
policy requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of
claims

grown

stale

for

non-assertion;

thus

laches

is

an

impediment to the assertion or enforcement of a right which has

become, under the circumstances, inequitable or unfair to
permit.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, complainant has no cause of

action because all of her salaries were duly paid by her employer;
in fact, she executed a receipt (Annex B hereof).

Nonetheless, as reasoned out above and as proven by

documents submitted herewith, complainant claims have been
settled and paid and already executed a quitclaim and release in
favor of the respondents, hence this case must be dismissed.
It may be argued that the complainant would not have filed
this case if there was no violation of her right. This argument

lacks basis in fact and in law because The filing by

complainant

of

alleged

illegal

dismissal

and

unpaid

salaries are but plain mistake. Complainant has nothing to

loss in filing this case against respondents but she had
everything to gain because this case can even be filed
without paying any monetary costs or spending for a filing
fee. Nonetheless, be that as it may, the substantial
evidence

herein

submitted

by

respondents

that

complainant has no cause of action should not be ignored

on the pretext that herein complainant would not have
filed this complaint if she was paid in full with her salary.
This non sequitor reasoning cannot take the place of the
evidence submitted by herein respondents that indeed
there was no such underpayment.
.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
moved that the instant complaint be dismissed for lack of merit.
Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are likewise
sought.
Quezon City, October 2, 2014.

Atty. ROGER ALIM RODRIGUEZ

Counsel for Respondents
c/o MECTAP INTERNATIONAL PLACEMENT SERVICES INC.
Rooms 105 106 VIR Building
1840 E. Rodriguez, Cubao, Quezon City
P.T.R. No. 8439481 * Pasig City * January 11, 2013
I.B.P No. 882584 * Pasig City * January 10, 2013
MCLE No. III 14549 * Pasig City * April 26, 2010
Roll No. 47673

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

____________________________) SS.

VERIFICATION
I, METELINA B. FORMENTO, of legal age and Filipino, after
having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and
state THAT:
I am the president of Mectap International Placement
Services Incorporated, one of the respondents in the aboveentitled case, that I have caused the preparation and filing
of the foregoing POSITION PAPER and I have read and
understood the contents thereof and the same are true and
correct to the best of my personal knowledge and based on
authentic records on hand;
AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this
October 2, 2014.
METELINA B. FORMENTO
Affiant
Passport Number EC1095030
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this October ____,
2014.; affiant exhibited to me her Passport Number EC1095030 a
competent and government issued i.d.
DOC. NO. ____
PAGE NO. ____
BOOK NO. ____
Series of 2014.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Copy furnished:
ROSALINA DOMINGO
Complainant

10