Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Quezon City
National Capital Region
MARITES P. AMABAO AND
FRANCISCO A. AMABAO,
Complaina
nts,
-versus-

NLRC CASE NO. NCR-05-06289-

15
Hon. L.A. Gaudencio P.
Demaisip, Jr.
EVERGOOD
FOOD
PRODUCT/ALEX S. LAO,
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------x

JOINT POSITION PAPER

Complainants, by counsel, to this Honorable Office,
most respectfully set forth the following:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
It is no less than the Constitution which
guarantees protection to the workers
security of tenure as a policy of the State.
This guarantee is an act of social justice.
(The Philippine American Life and
General Insurance Co. vs Gramaje, G.R.
No. 156963, 11 November 2004.). As a
rule, employment cannot be terminated by
an employer without any just or authorized
cause. The 1987 Constitution in Section 3,
Article 13 guarantees security of tenure for
workers and because of this, an employee
may only be terminated for just or
authorized causes that must comply with the

due process requirements mandated by law.

Hence, employers are barred from arbitrarily
removing their workers whenever and
however they want. The law sets the valid
grounds for termination as well as the proper
procedure to take when terminating the
services of an employee. (Alert Security
and
Investigation
Agency,
Inc
vs
Pasawilan, et al.; G.R. 182397; 14
September 2011).
Due process must be observed because
the dismissal affects not only the employee's
position but also his means of livelihood.
Truly, unemployment brings untold misery
and hardship not only to the workingmen but
also to those who are dependent on the
voyage earners. When a person has no
property, his job may possibly be his only
possession or means of livelihood. Therefore
he should be protected against arbitrary
deprivation
of
his
job.
(PhilippineSingapore Transport Services, Inc. vs
NLRC; G.R. 95449; 18 August 1997).
THE CASE
This is a case for illegal dismissal, underpayment/nonpayment of salaries and wages, overtime pay, holiday pay,
premiums on holiday and rest days, service incentive leave,
ECOLA, 13th month pay, and night shift differential; illegal
suspension; moral and exemplary damages; attorneys fees;
and payment of litigation and the like expenses including
cost of the suit filed by herein Complainants against herein
Respondents.
As reliefs, Complainants seek for their immediate
reinstatement to their former positions without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges under the law and the
payment of their full back wages, inclusive of allowances,
and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed
from the time their compensations were withheld from them
up to their actual reinstatement.

Furthermore, Complainants seek that they will be

compensated for other money claims, moral and exemplary
damages, ten percent (10%) attorneys fees, computed from
the total monetary award, and other related litigation costs
and expenses.
THE PARTIES
Complainants Marites P. Amabao and Francisco A.
Amabao are regular employees of respondent Evergood Food
Product. They may be served with summonses and other
legal processes, through the undersigned counsel, at Room
206, Jiao Bldg. No. 2 Timog Avenue, Quezon City.
Respondent Evergood Food Product, upon the other
hand, is a corporation operating under and by virtue of
Philippine laws while Respondent Alex S. Lao is the
responsible officer of Evergood Food Product. They may be
served with summonses and other legal processes at No. 4
Caroline Park, Qurino Highway, Baesa, Quezon City.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Complainants Marites P. Amabao and Francisco A.
Amabao are regular employees of Respondent Evergood
Food Product. They were engaged to perform works which
are usually necessary or desirable in the usual trade or
business of respondent Evergood Food Product, a
manufacturer of bread and other bakery products. The
complete facts and circumstances of this case are clearly
and concisely narrated in complainants Pinagsamang
Sinumpaang Salaysay which is hereto attached and made
integral part hereof as Annex A and hereunder quoted for
ready reference, to wit:
KAMI, sina MARITESS P. AMABAO at
FRANCISCO A. AMABAO, mag-asawa, mga
Pilipino, kapwa nasa hustong gulang at
nakatira sa No. 16 Camia Street, Wawa,
Taguig City, pagkatapos manumpa alinsunod
sa ipinag-uutos ng batas, ay malaya at
kusang loob na nagsasaad ng mga
sumusunod:

1. MARITES P. AMABAO
1.

Ako po si Marites P. Amabao. Ako

po ay nagsimulang mamasukan noong
November 29, 2004 sa EVERGOOD FOOD
PRODUCT na may address na #4 Caroline
Park , Quirino Highway, Baesa, Quezon City.
Sa kasalukuyan ako po ay isang supervisor.
Bilang patunay ay inilalakip ko dito ang aking
company I.D. bilang Annex A;
2.
Noong 2004, ako po ay agad nasabak
bilang isang repacker ng mga tinapay na may
tatak na Mr. Pullman. Ang aking pinapasukan
ay pabrika ng mga tinapay at maituturing na
isang malaking bakery;
3.
Ang sahod ko po noong nagsisimula
pa lang ako ay P160 per day. Ang aking pasok
po ay mula 10:00 a.m. hanggang 2:00 a.m.
kinabukasan. Kung minsan ay umaabot ng 3
a.m. ang aking paggawa. Ang bayad po sa
aking overtime ay P18.75 po kada oras;
4.
Noong taong 2006 ay dinagdagan nila
ang aking sahod ng P30 kada araw kung kaya
naging P190 na po ang aking sahod kada
araw. Pati ang aking overtime ay dinagdagan
na po nila kada oras. Wala pong binabayad sa
aking night differentials. Wala rin po akong
benefits katulad po ng 13th month pay, S.S.S.
Pag-ibig, Philhealth o anumang bonus man.
5.
Hindi rin po kami binibigyan ng
payslips kada sahod. Pumipirma lang po kami
sa isang logbook bilang patunay na nakuha
na namin ang aming sahod;
6.
Pagpasok po ng taong 2014 ginawa
na pong P230 ang sahod ko kada araw. Ang
halaga pong ito ang aking naging sahod
hanggang March 2015 noong ako po ay
suspendihin at tuluyan ng hindi papasukin sa
pabrika;
4

7.
Noong January 2015, bukod sa
pinapapirma po ako sa aming payroll logbook
ay pinapapirma pa rin sa akin ang isang
papel na wala naman nakasulat. Pilit po nila
akong pinapapirma doon.
Hindi raw nila
ibibigay ang aking sahod kapag hindi ako
pumirma. Dahil sa blanko po talaga ang papel
ay hindi ko po talaga ito pinirmahan.
Ganupaman ay nakasahod pa din ako ng
buwan ng January;
8.
Mula noong Februrary 19, 2015 ay
hindi na po ako pinasahod hanggang March.
Pati sa mga araw ng sahod namin na may
mga petsang February 28, March 07, March
14 at March 21, 2015 ay hindi na po ako
pinasahod sa dahilang hindi po ako
pumipirma sa bakanteng papel;
9.
Dahil sa hindi pagpapasahod sa akin,
pati sa aking asawa, ay nagsampa po kami
ng reklamo sa DOLE-NCR noong March 19,
2015. Pero tuloy pa rin ang aking pagtratrabaho hanggang pinatawag kami ni Mr Alex
S. Lao, ang may-ari ng EVERGOOD FOOD
PRODUCT, sa kanyang tanggapan at
sinabihan ako na pirmahan ko na ang papel
at ibibigay na niya ang aking sahod. Hindi pa
rin po ako pumirma;
10. Dahil sa hindi pagpapasahod sa akin
ay napilitan akong lumiban sa trabaho upang
lumapit sa mga kamag-anak para manghiram
ng pera na ipapadala ko sa aking mga anak
sa probinsiya. Kasama ko po ang aking asawa
sa paghahanap ng mauutangan. Nagpaalam
naman po kami ngunit nagulat na lamang
kami ng kami ay sinuspinde sa aming
trabaho. Nakalakip po dito ang suspension
memo, may petsang March 23, 2015, na
ibinigay sa akin at sa aking may-bahay,
bilang Annex B at Annex B-1;
11. Ang nasabing memorandum po ay
nagsasaad na kami ay suspendido simula
March 24, 2015 hanggang April 8, 2015;
5

12. Bumalik po kami ng aking asawa

noong April 9, 2015 upang mag-trabaho ng 6
a.m. ngunit hindi na po kami pinapasok ng
guwardiya. Hanggang gate na lang po kami.
Inabot po ako ng hanggang 1 p.m. sa pag-asa
na papasukin pa kami ng aking asawa.
Nagutom po ako ngunit hindi na po kami
nakapasok. Kaya umuwi na lang po ako,
kasama ang aking asawa, na malungkot at
may katanungan sa aking sarili. Paano na po
ang aking tatlong anak? Paano na po ang
kinabukasan nila;
13. Ako po ay may edad na. Siguradong
mahihirapan na po akong maghanap ng
trabaho dahil sa aking edad;
2. FRANCISCO A. AMABAO
14. Ako po si Francisco A. Amabao.
Nagsimula po akong mamasukan noong
January 22, 1994 sa EVERGOOD FOOD
PRODUCT bilang isang Oven Operator.
Nakalakip dito ang aking company I.D. bilang
Annex C. Ang pasok ko po 7a.m. 11 p.m.
Noong una po ay P80 po ang aking sahod
kada araw. Lingguhan po ang aking sahod
kaya po sa loob ng isang linggo mahigit P600
ang aking sinasahod kasama na po ang
overtime;
15. Noong taong 1999, kinaltasan po nila
ako ng P140 kada buwan para daw po ito sa
aking SSS contribution. Taong 2003 nakapagloan po ako sa SSS ng P6,000. Kasabay po
nito ay ginawa na po nilang P170 ang aking
sahod kada araw. Kaya po sumasahod na po
ako ng mahigit sa P1,500 kada isang linggo.
Hindi pa rin po sapat para po sa akin na
pamilyadong tao. At dahil sa wala pong ibang
pagkakakitaan itinuloy ko lang po ang
pagtratrabaho sa aming kumpanya;
16. Taong 2007, ginawa na po nilang
P190 kada araw ang aking sahod. Naging
P1,900 na po ang aking sinasahod sa loob po
6

ng isang linggo. Sagad na po ang overtime na

umaabot po hanggang 12:00 ng hatinggabi;
17. Taong 2010, dinagdagan na naman po
ang aking sahod na naging P210 kada araw.
Sumasahod na po ako ng P2,300 kada
Sabado kasama na po ang overtime. Halos
wala na po akong day-off kasi tuwing Linggo
ay pinapapasok po ako para maglinis ng mga
liyanera. Kaya wala na po akong panahon
para sa aking pamilya;
18. Taong 2012, muli nilang dinagdagan
ang aking sahod na naging P230 na po kada
araw. Bale ang sinasahod ko po tuwing
Sabado ay P2,500, kasama na po ang
overtime;
19. Taong 2014, sumasahod na po ako ng
P250 kada araw. Pumapatak pong P2,800
kada isang Linggo ang aking sinasahod,
kasama na ang overtime. Ito po ang sahod ko
hanggang sa ako ay iligal na tanggalin sa
trabaho;
20. Noon
pong
taong
2007,
may
dumating po na notice sa akin mula sa SSS
dahil hindi raw ako kinakaltasan ng aking
bayad sa inutang ko na loan. Nagtataka po
ako kasi tuloy tuloy naman po nila akong
kinakaltasan ng aking kontribusyon sa SSS
mula 1999 hanggang sa taong kasalukuyan.
Kaya ang ginawa po ng aking kumpanya ay
kinakaltasan po nila ako ng P300 kada sahod
simula May 11, 2007. Tatlumput-apat (34) na
linggo po ako binawasan kaya umabot po ang
kinaltas
nila
sa
aking
ng
P10,200
samantalang P6,000 lang naman po ang
aking na loan sa SSS. Sinabihan po ako ng
secretary ng aming kumpanya na marerefund naman daw po yung sobra pero
hanggang sa taong kasalukuyan hindi po nila
binigay ang sobra sa akin;
21. Noong March 2015, nag verify po ako
sa SSS para sa kontribusyon ko at nalaman
ko na hindi po nila hinuhulugan ang aking
7

SSS magmula ng taong 2014 hanggang

March 2015;
22. Noong January 2015, kada sahod po
namin ay pinapapirma po kami sa aming
payroll. Ang pinagtataka ko po ay kung bakit
kami pinapapirma sa bakanteng papel na
wala naman nakasulat. Pilit po nila akong
pinapapirma doon. Ang sinasabi nila ay hindi
raw nila ibibigay ang aking sahod kapag hindi
ako pumirma. Dahil sa blanko po talaga ang
papel ay hindi ko po talaga pinirmahan ang
papel na iyon. Bale noong buwan ng January
nakuha ko pa ang aking sahod;
23. Magmula February 19, 2015 ay hindi
na po ako pinasahod hanggang March na
may mga petsa February 28, March 07, March
14, at March 21, 2015. Bale apat na linggo po
ako hindi nakasahod. Nagreklamo po ako sa
DOLE-NCR dahil sa ginawa ng kumpanya sa
pag-ipit sa aking sahod. Pero tuloy pa rin ang
aking pagta-trabaho. May mga araw na
nagpaalam ako na liliban sa trabaho upang
maghanap ng pera na mapapadala ko sa
aking mga anak dahil nga hindi kami
pinapasahod. Nanghiram po kami sa mga
kamag-anak;
24. Pinatawag kami ni Mr. Alex S. Lao,
ang
may-ari
ng
EVERGOOD
FOOD
PRODUCT
sa kanyang tanggapan at
sinabihan kami na pirmahan ko na ang
blangkong papel at ibibigay na niya ang
aking sahod. Hindi pa rin po ako pumirma.
Kung kaya ang ginawa nila ay sinuspinde po
ako sa aking trabaho. At nakatanggap nga po
kami, kaming mag-asawa, ng memoramdum
na
naka-petsang
March
23,
2015.
Sinususpinde nila kami mula March 24
hanggang April 8, 2015. Wala po kaming
nagawa. Ngunit pagbalik po naming noong
April 9, 2015 ng 6 a.m. upang muling magreport at magtrabaho ay hindi na po kami
pinapasok ng guwardiya. Wala po kaming
nagawang mag-asawa kung hindi umuwi na
lang;
8

25. Kaya ang ginawa ko po, kasama ang

aking asawa, ay lumapit po ako sa Labor
upang idulog ang amin pong problema at
mabigyan po ng katarungan ang aming
sinapit. Sa kabila po ng mga sakripisyo ko sa
nasabing kumpanya ng halos 21 years, at
gawin po ang sinasabing trabahong kalabaw,
ay ganito pa po ang aking sasapitin. Umaasa
po ako na mabibigyan ng hustisya ang aking
sinapit pati ng aking may-bahay;
3. PARA SA LAHAT:
26. Dahil
sa
aming
biglaang
pagkakatanggal sa trabaho, kami at ang
aming mga pamilya ay dumanas ng hindi
birong hirap dahil sa kami lamang ang
kanilang inaasahan;
27. Kami ay hindi mapagkatulog, walang
ganang kumain, laging balisa, nakaramdam
ng pagkapahiya, insulto at iba pa;
28. Dahil
sa
hindi
makatarungang
pagkaka-tanggal sa aming trabaho ay
napilitan kaming
magsampa ng kaso sa
tanggapan ng National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) at kumuha ng abogado
para mahinusay na malitis at maipagtanggol
ang kaso naming ito;
29. Ginawa namin ang Sinumpaang
Salaysay na ito para patunayan ang lahat na
nakasaad sa itaas.
BILANG PATOTOO, ay inilalagda namin
sa ibaba ang aming mga pangalan ngayong
ika-09 ng Hulyo 2015 dito sa Lungsod ng
Quezon.
ISSUES
I.

WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANTS

WERE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED AND
WERE DENIED DUE PROCESS
II.
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS
ARE SOLIDARILY LIABLE FOR ALL
THE MONEY CLAIMS HEREIN
CLAIMED.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS
ARE SOLIDARILY LIABLE FOR
DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS FEES AND
OTHER RELATED LITIGATION
EXPENSES INCLUDING COSTS OF
THE SUIT.
DISCUSSION/ARGUMENTS
COMPLAINANTS WERE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED
Complainants were illegally dismissed.
Complainants were hired, engaged and assigned by
Evergood Food Product to perform activities which are clearly
usually necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business
of the company. Being regular employees as defined by
Article 280, paragraph 1 of the Labor Code, they cannot be
dismissed from their jobs except for just or authorized
causes as provided in Article 279 of the same Code.
The Court, in Alert Security and Investigation
Agency vs. Pasawilan et. Al. G.R. No. 182397,
September 14, 2011, categorically pronounced:
As a rule, employment cannot be terminated
by an employer without any just or authorized
cause. No less than the 1987 Constitution in
Section 3, Article 13 guarantees security of tenure
for workers and because of this, an employee may
10

only be terminated for just or authorized causes

that must comply with the due process
requirements mandated by law. Hence, employers
are barred from arbitrarily removing their workers
whenever and however they want. The law sets
the valid grounds for termination as well as the
proper procedure to take when terminating the
services of an employee.
In De Guzman, Jr. v. Commission on
Elections, the
Court,
speaking
of
the
Constitutional guarantee of security of tenure to
all workers, ruled:
x x x It only means that an employee
cannot be dismissed (or transferred) from the
service for causes other than those provided by
law and after due process is accorded the
employee. What it seeks to prevent is
capricious exercise of the power to dismiss. x
xx
Although we recognize the right of employers
to shape their own work force, this management
prerogative must not curtail the basic right of
employees to security of tenure. There must be a
valid and lawful reason for terminating the
employment of a worker. Otherwise, it is illegal
and would be dealt with by the courts accordingly.
As stated in Bascon v. Court of Appeals:
x x x The employers power to dismiss must
be tempered with the employees right to security
of tenure. Time and again we have said that the
preservation of the lifeblood of the toiling laborer
comes
before
concern
for
business
profits. Employers must be reminded to exercise
the power to dismiss with great caution, for the
State will not hesitate to come to the succor of
workers
wrongly
dismissed
by
capricious
employers. (Emphasis Supplied).
COMPLAINANTS WERE DENIED DUE PROCESS
11

Complainants were denied due process. They were just

instantly and summarily dismissed right then and there on
the flimsy grounds that only Respondents can imagine. They
were not even afforded their rights to explain and defend
their sides on any charges hurled against them that were
made as basis for their dismissal. In fact, they were just
plainly been denied their salaries and were forced to leave
their jobs after they refused to sign blank papers which the
management of Evergood Food Product had prepared. This is
a classic example of an exceedingly brutal denial of due
process. The facts are so plain and simple to be overlooked.
As can be clearly deduced from Complainants
Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay, Respondents did not
even properly charge Complainants of any violation of a
particular company rule or regulation. Respondents never
conducted a single hearing so that Complainants could have
defended themselves and air their sides on whatever
charges the Respondents were leveling against them.
The case of REYNALDO Q. AGULLANO vs.
CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING and CATALINA LEONEN
PIZARRO, G.R. No. 164850, September 25, 2008, is
quite instructive on this point, to wit:
However, on the second requisite, i.e.,
procedural due process, we find the respondents
compliance with the twin notice requirement sadly
wanting and inadequate.
In R.B. Michael Press v. Nicanor C. Galit,
this Court had occasion to reiterate that under the
twin notice requirement, the employees must be
given two (2) notices before their employment
could be terminated: (1) a first notice to apprise
the employees of their fault, and (2) a second
notice to communicate to the employees that their
employment is being terminated. To this, we
added:
Not to be taken lightly, of course, is the
hearing or opportunity for the employee to defend
himself personally or by counsel of his choice.

12

The procedure for this twin notice and

hearing requirement was thoroughly explained in
King of Kings Transport v. Mamac, in this wise:
(1) The first written notice to be served on
the employees should contain the specific causes
or grounds for termination against them, and a
directive that the employees are given the
opportunity to submit their written explanation
within
a
reasonable
period.
"Reasonable
opportunity" under the Omnibus Rules means
every kind of assistance that management must
accord to the employees to enable them to
prepare adequately for their defense. This should
be construed as a period of at least five (5)
calendar days from receipt of the notice to give
the employees an opportunity to study the
accusation against them, consult a union official or
lawyer, gather data and evidence, and decide on
the defenses they will raise against the complaint.
Moreover, in order to enable the employees to
intelligently prepare their explanation and
defenses, the notice should contain a detailed
narration of the facts and circumstances that will
serve as basis for the charge against the
employees. A general description of the charge
will not suffice. Lastly, the notice should
specifically mention which company rules, if any,
are violated and/or which among the grounds
under Art. 282 is being charged against the
employees.
(2) After serving the first notice, the
employers should schedule and conduct a hearing
or conference wherein the employees will be given
an opportunity to (1) explain and clarify their
defenses to the charge against them; (2) present
evidence in support of their defenses; and (3)
rebut the evidence presented against them by the
management. During the hearing or conference,
the employees are given the chance to defend
themselves personally, with the assistance of a
representative or counsel of their choice.
Moreover, the conference or hearing could be used
by the parties as an opportunity to come to an
amicable settlement.
13

(3) After determining that termination of

employment is justified, the employers shall serve
the employees a written notice of termination
indicating that: (1) all circumstances involving the
charge against the employees have been
considered;
and
(2)
grounds
have
been
established to justify the severance of their
employment.
A careful examination of the disciplinary
procedure adopted by the respondent which led to
the dismissal of petitioner shows that the
respondent merely paid lip service to the
foregoing procedural due process requirement.
First, the March 31, 2000 memorandum of
respondent issued to the petitioner, after the latter
failed to attend the DECS and the PIAP meetings,
obviously did not satisfy the first written notice
requirement. Albeit this memorandum required the
petitioner to explain his absence in those two
important meetings, there was clearly no
intimation that the petitioner would be terminated
from employment for this singular offense. No
such intention to dismiss the petitioner can be
inferred from the memorandum because this one
infraction cannot be equated with "gross or
habitual neglect," nor can it be characterized as
"fraud or willful breach" by the petitioner of the
respondents trust reposed in him. This was even
borne out by subsequent events, as it was not
until four months later in the July 25, 2000
memorandum that respondents alluded to
petitioners termination from employment.
Second, even if we assume that the March
31, 2000 memorandum was already intended to
serve as the first written notice, there would still
be a breach of the procedural due process
requirement, because no hearing or conference
was called by the respondent at which petitioner
could have presented his defenses. The absence of
a hearing or conference likewise vitiates the July

14

25, 2000 memorandum. As we said in R.B. Michael

Press:
(T)here is still a need to comply with the twin
notice requirement and the requisite hearing or
conference to ensure that the employees are
afforded due process even though they may have
been caught in flagrante or when the evidence of
the commission of the offense is strong.
Third, if the July 25, 2000 memorandum is to
be considered the first notice, it would suffer from
patent infirmities, and not just from the lack of a
hearing or conference. It does not grant the
petitioner an opportunity to answer the charges of
absenteeism and tardiness; it does not give him
time to seek the assistance of counsel; and most
tellingly, it was to be followed the very next day
with the notice of termination, effective
immediately.
The
respondents
lamely
proffer
the
hypothesis that there was substantial compliance
with the twin notice and hearing requirement.
Unfortunately, the records are bereft of any proof
of compliance, much less substantial compliance,
with the procedure outlined in King of Kings
Transport.
In sum, we hold that the dismissal of
petitioner from employment was attended by a
violation, by the respondents, of procedural due
process. (Underscoring Ours).
Also instructive and enlightening on this point is the
case of CRC AGRICULTURAL TRADING and ROLANDO B.
CATINDIG
vs.
NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION and ROBERTO OBIAS, G.R. No. 177664,
December 23, 2009, to wit:
Even assuming that a valid ground to
dismiss the respondent exists, the petitioners
failed to comply with the twin requirements of
notice and hearing under the Labor Code.

15

The long established jurisprudence holds that

to justify the dismissal of an employee for a just
cause, the employer must furnish the worker with
two written notices. The first is the notice to
apprise the employee of the particular acts or
omissions for which his dismissal is sought. This
may be loosely considered as the charge against
the employee. The second is the notice informing
the employee of the employers decision to
dismiss him. This decision, however, must come
only after the employee is given a reasonable
period from receipt of the first notice within which
to answer the charge, and ample opportunity to
be heard and defend himself with the assistance
of his representative, if he so desires. The
requirement of notice is not a mere technicality,
but a requirement of due process to which every
employee is entitled.
The petitioners clearly failed to comply with
the two-notice requirement. Nothing in the records
shows that the petitioners ever sent the
respondent a written notice informing him of the
ground for which his dismissal was sought. It does
not also appear that the petitioners held a hearing
where the respondent was given the opportunity
to answer the charges of abandonment. Neither
did the petitioners send a written notice to the
respondent informing the latter that his service
had been terminated and the reasons for the
termination of employment. Under these facts, the
respondents dismissal was illegal. (Underscoring
Ours).

COMPLAINANTS ARE CLEARLY ENTITLED

TO ALL THE MONEY CLAIMS HEREIN
CLAIMED
INCLUDING
DAMAGES,
ATTORNEYS FEES, LITIGATION AND THE
LIKE EXPENSES INCLUDING COST OF THE
SUIT FOR WHICH RESPONDENTS ARE
SOLIDARILY LIABLE
16

A simple perusal of the Complaint and the

Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay of herein Complainants
reveals that Respondents have violated different labor
standard laws. Considering that Complainants are seeking
the satisfaction of simple money claims, Respondents,
therefore, are obligated to submit proofs of payment of such
claims. Otherwise, as a consequence of Respondents failure
to present or submit proofs of payment, Complainants claim
of non-payment of money due them will become
unquestionable.
Besides, in this jurisdiction, it is settled, that in cases of
money claims asserted by its employees, the burden of proof
is shifted to the employer, bearing in mind that it possesses
all the necessary pieces of evidence to prove payment of
such claims. What is required of the complainant-employee
is merely the execution of a sworn affidavit attesting to the
non-payment of the same. With the submission of herein
Complainants Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay, they
have more than complied of what is expected of them.
As a proximate result of Respondents unlawful acts as
clearly adverted to above, Complainants suffered untold
miseries brought about by the sudden deprivation of their
only means of livelihood. They, being the bread winners of
their respective families, were brusquely denied of their
source of income. They were thrown out of the jobs they
faithfully performed because Respondents had cleverly
employed a subterfuge to undermine Complainants security
of tenure.
All the illegal and improvident acts of the Respondents
discussed above, which are part and parcel of their
malevolent and anti-workers inclination and attitudes, were
motivated by ill-will and illicit intentions and committed with
willful and evident bad faith.
Verily, the Complainants are entitled to moral damages
as provided for under Articles 2217 and 2219 in relation to
Article 21 and paragraph 6 of Article 32 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines.
The foregoing provisions read as follows:

17

Article 2217. Moral damages include physical

suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation, and similar injury.
Though incapable of pecuniary computation,
moral damages may be recovered if they are the
proximate result of the defendants wrongful act
or omission. (Emphasis supplied)
Article 2219. Moral damages may be
recovered in the following and analogous cases:
xxx

xxx

xxx

(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles

21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35.
(Underscoring Supplied)
Article 21. Any person who willfully causes
loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy
shall compensate the latter for the damage.
Article 32. Any public officer or employee, or
any private individual, who directly or indirectly
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner
impedes or impairs any of the following rights and
liberties of another person shall be liable to the
latter for damages:
xxx

xxx

xxx

(6) The right against deprivation of property

without due process of law.
Since it is clear that the Complainants are entitled to
moral damages, perforce, they are likewise entitled to
exemplary damages pursuant to Article 2229 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines which provides:
Article 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages
are imposed, by way of example or correction for

18

the public good, in addition to the moral,

temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
It is settled that a dismissed employee is entitled to
moral damages when the dismissal 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 may be awarded if the dismissal
is effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner.
Unquestionably, it appears from the facts that
Complainants were deliberately dismissed from the service
by reason of their refusal to sign blank papers every time
they will get their payrolls. This is a clear indication of bad
faith and an act oppressive to labor.
The award of moral and exemplary damages is proper
when an illegally dismissed employee had been harassed
and arbitrarily terminated by the employer, as when the
latter committed an anti-social and oppressive abuse of its
right. (Sagum vs. CA, G.R. No. 158759, May 26, 2005).
Complainants were dismissed from their jobs by means
of a ruse deliberately designed by the Respondents to
circumvent our Constitution and labor laws. Such scheme is
clearly done in bad faith. Out of necessity, therefore,
Respondents must pay herein Complainants moral and
exemplary damages as rightful compensations for the
latters undeserved sufferings.
Finally, having been compelled to engage the services
of counsel to vindicate their rights, Complainants must be
further entitled to attorneys fees equivalent to ten (10)
percent of the total judgment amount that may be awarded
herein. As the Supreme Court held in Philippine National
Construction Corporation vs. NLRC, 277 SCRA 91:
It is settled that in actions for recovery of wages
or where an employee was forced to litigate and,
thus, incur expenses to protect his rights and
interests, the award of attorneys fees is legally
and morally justifiable.
PRAYER
19

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most

respectfully prayed for that, after due consideration, a
DECISION BE RENDERED in favor of the Complainants as
follows:
1.
DECLARING Complainants to have been DENIED
DUE PROCESS and their DISMISSAL as ILLEGAL;
2.
DIRECTING
Respondents
to
immediately
REINSTATE the Complainants to their former positions
without loss of seniority rights and other privileges under the
law and the payment of their FULL BACKWAGES , inclusive
of allowances, and to other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time their compensations
were withheld from them up to the time of their actual
reinstatement;
3.
HOLDING Respondents SOLIDARILY LIABLE for
other monetary claims herein demanded as well as
DAMAGES in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
(P100,000.00)
PESOS. FOR EACH COMPLAINANT, as
moral damages and TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND
(P200,000.00) PESOS, FOR EACH COMPLAINANT, as
exemplary damages;
4. DECLARING Respondents SOLIDARILY LIABLE to
reimburse Complainants all THEIR litigation and other related
expenses, including attorneys fees equivalent to ten (10%)
percent of the total monetary award.

OTHER RELIEFS deemed just and equitable under the

premises are likewise prayed for.
Quezon City 09 July 2015.

LAWIN
(Legal Advocates for Workers INterest)
Counsel for Complainants
Room 206, Jiao Building
20

2 Timog Avenue, Quezon City

Email address: lawin2setufree@yahoo.com
Telefax (02) 373-18-44

ERNESTO R. ARELLANO
PTR No. 0560896; 01-05-15; Q.C.
IBP No. 0981335; 01-05-15; CALMANA
ROLL No. 22660
MCLE No. IV-0017780; 22 April 2013

JASPER C. BALBOA
PTR No. 0595301; 01-06-15; Q.C.
IBP No. 0982982; 01-06-15; MANILA I
ROLL No. 63288
MCLE Compliance until 14 April 2016
Admitted to the Bar on 07 May 2014

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM

SHOPPING
WE, MARITES P. AMABAO and FRANCISCO A.
AMABAO, all of legal age, Filipinos, after being duly sworn,
depose and say:
1.
That we are the Complainants in the aboveentitled case; We have caused the preparation and filing of
the foregoing Joint Position Paper; We have read the contents
of the same; and that we affirm, as true and correct, the
allegations contained therein, to the best of our own
personal knowledge or based on authentic records;
21

2.
That we have not commenced any other action or
filed any claim involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and that to the best of our
own knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending in
any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency;
3.
That if we should thereafter learn that a same or
similar action or claim has been filed or pending before any
court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, we will undertake to
report such fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court,
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency wherein the aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we hereunto affixed our own
signatures this 9th day of July 2015 in Quezon City.

MARITES P. AMABAO
Affiant
TIN 277-254-162-000

FRANCISCO P. AMABAO
Affiant
TIN 269-918-913-000

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 9th day

of July 2015 here in Quezon City. Affiants exhibited to me
their respective government-issued I.D.s with numbers
indicated above to prove and establish their personal
identities.
Doc. No. _____;
Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2015.

22

COPY FURNISHED: by hand and during hearing

EVERGOOD FOOD PRODUCT/ ALEX S.
LAO
Respondents
No. 4 Caroline Park, Qurino Highway, Baesa , Quezon City
1106
Received by: ______________________
Time and date: ______________________

23