Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RODERIC V. CEAS,
Complainant,
MASTERLINE ENT/
VICENTE UY MAGADIA,
Respondent/s,
x--------------- -x
POSITION PAPER
Labor Arbitration Office, most respectfully submits this position paper and
PREFATORY STATEMENT
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
San Vicente, Brgy. Tacolod, Canaman Camarines Sur, where the said
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1
The Complainant was formerly a regular employee of Respondent
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
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
2008 with the starting salary of Php 180.00 per day. Before his first year of
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
Likewise, Complainant was not given the yearly service incentive leave
2
Sometime in the third week of March 2012, Complainant requested to
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
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
Here finally, Complainant was verbally terminated without due process from
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.
sleepless nights, wounded feelings, serious anxiety, moral shock, and social
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, 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.
1. His 13th month pay for the years 2008 and 2011 be
paid to him;
with his client. Thus, another conciliation conference was set on May 17,
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
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
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
OVERTIME PAY.
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
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
the employers decision to dismiss him (St Lukes Medical Center Inc vs
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.
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,
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
As to the entitlement of service incentive leave pay, rest day pay and
same just like all other regular employees and as guaranteed by the Labor
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
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
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
which in the latest wage order, the minimum wage is already Php. 252.00.
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.
DAMAGES)
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
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
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
PRAYER
Complainant separation pay, the 13th month pay for the years
8
3. Ordering the Respondent to pay to the Complainant his
PREMIUM PAY AND OVERTIME PAY that were all deprived from
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are also prayed for.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
By:
9
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
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.
RODERIC V. CEAS
Affiant
10
Doc. No. ;
Page No. ;
Book No. ;
Series of 2012.
11