Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. V
Naga City

RODERIC V. CEAS,
Complainant,

-versus- NLRC CASE NO. SRAB-V-05-00034-12

MASTERLINE ENT/
VICENTE UY MAGADIA,
Respondent/s,
x--------------- -x

POSITION PAPER

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

The Complainant in this case is RODERIC V. CEAS, of legal age,

married, with home address at Zone 6, Brgy. San Felipe, Naga City. He could

be served with summons and other legal processes of this Honorable Office

c/o Atty. Armeen Alain B. Gomez, GOMEZLaw, Unit 7 Dy-Chiao Bldg., Mayon

Ave., Naga City.

The Respondent is MASTERLINE ENTERPRISES, a business

establishment owned by Mr. Vicente Uy Magadia, with business address at

San Vicente, Brgy. Tacolod, Canaman Camarines Sur, where the said

establishment and representative could be served with summons and other

legal processes of this Honorable Office.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1
 The Complainant was formerly a regular employee of Respondent

MASTERLINE ENTERPRISES / Mr. Vicente Uy Magadia since March 2008.

The business undertaking of the said Respondent is to manufacture, sell

and deliver hollow-blocks which Complainant prepares in the premises of the

Respondent and delivers to buyers address.

Complainant was neither never given Company ID nor pay slip,

however as proof of employment a copy of the Complainants Philhealth

Member Data Record indicating his employer MASTERLINE ENTERPRISES is

hereto attached as Annex A, and copies of entries in the establishments

Daily Time Records hereto attached as Annex B as proofs of the

Complainants employment.

The Complainant worked for six (6) days a week, he worked for 8.5

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, and Good

Friday. His salary is deducted Php 100.00 per absence if he did not report

for work on either local or national holidays,.

The Complainant was initially hired as pahinante (truck help) in March

2008 with the starting salary of Php 180.00 per day. Before his first year of

service, he was promoted as Machine Operator making hollow-blocks, with

the salary of Php 210.00. He has a quota of making 800 hollow blocks per

day. His daily wage was never increased until he was illegally terminated on

March 23, 2012. All of the aforementioned daily wage rates are below the

prevailing minimum wage mandated by law and given effect by Wage Order

RB-12, Wage Order RB-13, Wage Order RB-14, and Wage Order RB-15

issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board V.

Likewise, Complainant was not given the yearly service incentive leave

of five days with pay in accordance to Article 95 of the Labor Code.

2
 Sometime in the third week of March 2012, Complainant requested to

reduce the number of hollow-blocks to be made because he is working for

more than the time recorded in the DTR, and not taking bath room breaks

just to reach the 800 hollow-blocks quota. However, instead of taking action

on the said request, Complainant was advised to take a half-day on March

23, 2012, (a copy of the DTR Logbook with the entry of his afternoon

attendance crossed out is hereto attached as Annex C), and report back to

work on the next day. When he reported for work on March 24, 2012, he

was again advised to report to work on March 26, 2012. Thus Complainant

went home again, and reported to work on March 26, 2012 only to be told,

for the third time, to report for work on March 28, 2012.

On March 28, 2012, when Complainant reported for work, for the

fourth time, he was advised not to work, and just report for work on April 9,

2012, after the Holy Week. However, complainant noticed that there is a new

employee on the premises doing his task.

Still undeterred, Complainant reported for work on April 9, 2012.

Here finally, Complainant was verbally terminated without due process from

his work by Mr. Vicente Uy Magadia, the owner of the MASTERLINE

ENTERPRISES.

The Complainant was not given his 13th month pay for the year 2011,

although in the years 2009 and 2010, he was given PhP 3,000.00 every

December. Likewise, his 13th month pay for the year 2008 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.

3
 To seek for the enforcement of the rights afforded him by law, on April

16, 2012 Complainant filed a complaint before the NLRC and a conciliation

conference was set on April 24, 2012. Respondent failed to appear on the

said date, but Atty. Victor Reyes counsel of the respondent, manifested that

Respondent will be available on April 25, 2012. To give time to the

respondent, the conciliation conference was reset on April 26, 2012. Still, on

the date of April 26, 2012, Respondent was again not around and filed a

motion for resetting dated April 24, 2012 alleging his unavailability and

inferring upon this Honorable Office that the same was not intended for

delay. Thus, again, the conciliation conference was reset on May 8, 2012.

Consequently, on May 8, 2012, Complainant appeared, and Atty. Victor

Reyes represented the Respondent. In the said conciliation conference,

Complainant requested that:

1. His 13th month pay for the years 2008 and 2011 be

paid to him;

2. His salary be adjusted in accordance with the

minimum wage, and the differential be paid as well as

the payment of the holiday/premium pay; and

3. The quota of 8 bags (1 bag is equal to 100 hollow-

blocks) be reduced to 6 bags.

Respondents counsel, Atty. Victor Reyes manifested that he is not

authorized to enter into such agreement so he has to discuss this requests

with his client. Thus, another conciliation conference was set on May 17,

2012 at 2 oclock in the afternoon.

On the morning of May 17, 2012, Atty. Victor Reyes called Ms. Rose

Marie Santos, SEAD Officer and informed her that the requests will be

granted. Hence, at 2 oclock in the afternoon, only the Complainant

appeared. Concerned SEAD Officer relayed the message to the Complainant

and advised him to report for work.

4
 Unfortunately, Complainant was badly and deliberately misled by the

Respondent. He was never given the 13th month pay, the holiday/premium

pay, and the salary adjustment. In fact, his salary for the days work was

viciously thrown at his face, and he was again verbally abused and fired by

herein Respondent. As a consequence to this attack to his right and dignity,

he decided to pursue the case and refused further negotiation.

In support of the foregoing allegations are the minutes of the case

SEAD-NLRC SUB-RAB V NO. 04-00049-121, and the Respondents Motion for

Resetting,2 are attached and made integral part of this Position Paper, as

well as his verified Complaint dated May 21, 2012 which is on the records of

this case.

ISSUES

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY

DISMISSED AND WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT WAS

AFFORDED THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.

2. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO SERVICE

INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY, HOLIDAY PAY, REST DAY PAY AND

OVERTIME PAY.

3. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT WAS UNDERPAID.

4. WHETHER OR NOT, THE RESPONDENT IS LIABLE TO THE

COMPLAINANT FOR NOMINAL DAMAGES AND MORAL DAMAGES.

FIRST ISSUE: (Illegal Dismissal and no Procedural Due Process)

From the foregoing facts, it is clear that the dismissal of the

complainant was illegal thus he should be paid of his separation pay as

1
Hereto Attached as Annex D, E, F, G
2
Hereto acctached as Annex H

5
provided by law. Also, no procedural process was accorded to him prior to

his termination from service.

Insofar as the procedural due process 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 employers decision to dismiss him (St Lukes Medical Center Inc vs

Notario GR No. 152166, October 20, 2010).

In this instant case, clearly the complainant was not afforded of the

procedural due process of the twin notice rule 3 accorded by law because he

was simply constructively and later verbally fired from his employment.

In addition, 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 [PLDT Co. Inc. vs Amparo Balbastro, G.R. No. 157202, March 28,

2007 citing Royal Crown Internationale v. National Labor Relations

Commission, G.R. No. 78085, October 16, 1989, 178 SCRA 569, 578 and

Polymedic General Hospital v. NLRC, G.R. No. 64190, January 31, 1985, 134

SCRA 420; and also Article 277 of the Labor Code].

SECOND ISSUE: (SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY, HOLIDAY PAY, REST

DAY PAY, OVERTIME PAY)

As to the entitlement of service incentive leave pay, rest day pay and

holiday pay premiums, the Complainant believes that he is entitled to the

same just like all other regular employees and as guaranteed by the Labor

Code of the Philippines. The complainant was deprived of his service

incentive leave pay, holiday and rest day premium pay.

3
Electro System Industries Corp vs NLRC G.R. No. 165282, October 5, 2005

6
 The Labor Code provides for an 8-hour normal hours of work pursuant

to Art. 83 thereof and work rendered in excess of 8 hours should be paid the

overtime pay in accordance with Art. 87. Inasmuch as the Complainant

rendered 8.5 hours per day of work, he is entitled to overtime pay.

THIRD ISSUE (UNDERPAYMENT OF SALARY)

The Complainant was underpaid throughout his employment with the

Respondent. For instance, when he was receiving a daily wage of Php

180.00 in 2008 when Wage Order No. RB05-12 took effect, the minimum

daily wage mandated was already Php 214.00. Thus, when he was promoted

as Machine Operator in 2009, with a salary of PhP 210.00 he was already

underpaid. The minimum wage granted to the Complainant by Wage Order

No. RB05-12 was never paid in accordance with the amount prescribed in

the said wage order, has since been superseded by the subsequent wage

orders particularly Wage Order No.s RB015-13, RB05-14, and RB05-15

which in the latest wage order, the minimum wage is already Php. 252.00.

The Complainant respectfully submit that he should have been

receiving the daily minimum wage so provided by the wage orders issued by

the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board V and considering that

he has not received the legal wage mandated by law, he should be paid the

salary differential.

FIFTH ISSUE: (NOMINAL DAMAGES, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND MORAL

DAMAGES)

Cleary, the Respondent violated the statutory right of the herein

complainant i.e. his right to be furnished of the two written notice prior to

dismissal as specifically provided by Article 277 (b) of the Labor Code of the

Philippines. In a case like this, the proper award is nominal damages under

the Civil Code as it is aimed to vindicate the right to procedural due process

7
violated by the employer. In the case of Aliling vs Feliciano et.al., (G.R. No.

185829, April 25, 2012), for lack of statutory due process, the employer was

ordered to indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory right

which warrants the indemnity in the form of nominal damages.

Likewise the herein Complainant is entitled to moral damages because

the dismissal of the complainant was attended by bad faith of constitutive of

an act oppressive to labor. He was made to report to work on different dates,

bur refused to let him work. He was misled to believe that his requests will

be granted, but he was instead insulted, terminated verbally, and his salary

thrown at his face. In the case of Lim vs. National Labor Relations

Commission [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 instant case, there is no other plausible explanation for the acts

(or its conspicuous absence) of the Respondent of the manner wherein the

Complainant was deprived of his employment except bad faith.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Labor Arbiter, that decision be rendered, to wit:

1. Declaring the termination of the herein Complainant as

illegal and further, ordering Respondent to pay unto the

Complainant separation pay, the 13th month pay for the years

2008 and 2011.

2. Ordering the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the

salary differential due to him.

8
3. Ordering the Respondent to pay to the Complainant his

SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY, HOLIDAY PAY, HOLIDAY

PREMIUM PAY AND OVERTIME PAY that were all deprived from

him during his entire employment with the Respondent.

4. Furthermore, it is likewise prayed unto the Honorable Labor

Arbiter to order the Respondent to pay the herein Complainant

nominal damages in the amount of Php 30,000.00 for not

affording to the complainant the procedural due process, the

amount of Php 100,000.00 as moral damages, the amount of Php

50,000.00 as exemplary damages and the amount of Php

50,000.00 as Attorneys Fees,

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are also prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Naga City, July 25, 2012.

By:

(VERIFICATION ON THE NEXT PAGE)

9
 VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, RODERIC V. CEAS, of legal age, married, with home address at Zone 6,

Brgy. San Felipe, Naga City, and with postal address at c/o GomezLAW, Unit 7, Dy-
Chiao Bldg., Mayon Avenue, 4400 Naga City, after having been sworn in accordance
with law hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the Complainant in the above-entitled NLRC CASE NO. SRAB-V-

05-00034-12;

2. I caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Position Paper;

3. I have read and understood the contents hereof and the facts therein
alleged are true and correct of our own personal knowledge and based on authentic
records.

4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the

same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions
thereof, or any other court, tribunal or agency.

5. To the best of my knowledge, no similar action or proceeding is

pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof,
or any other court, tribunal or agency;

6. Should it come to my knowledge that a similar action or proceeding

has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
different Divisions thereof, or any other court, tribunal or agency, I hereby
undertake to notify this Honorable Office within five (5) days from such notice.

FURTHER AFFIANTS SAYETH NAUGHT.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature on this 25 th

day of July at Naga City, Cam. Sur, Philippines.

RODERIC V. CEAS
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in Naga City by affiant personally

known to me and exhibiting to me his Community Tax Certificate Number as above-
written.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on the date and place above-written.

10
Doc. No. ;
Page No. ;
Book No. ;
Series of 2012.

11