REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch 1

FRANCISCO L. OLEGARIO,
Complainant,
NLRC Case No. RAB-I-
--versus --

MUSTARD SEED COMMERCIAL

& AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY and/or
MEDARDO FERRERA,
Respondent/s.
x-----------------------------------------x

REPLY
TO RESPONDENT’S POSITION PAPER

Complainant, through and by the undersigned counsel, with

all due respect submits this REPLY.

Alleged violation of House Rules

Respondent’s contention that complainant is guilty of

violating the company’s House Rule is a misnomer. With regards to
Rule 7(3) or taking tips and commissions from customers,
complainant did not violate it. He was not given tip by any of their
customers. Moreover, no commission was received by him by
reason of his work or services rendered. Thus, there is no stealing
to speak of and no violation of Rule8(a).

Secondly, there was no violation of Rule(8)(c) Having own

business inside MSCAS. The claim of the respondent that
complainant vested into an illegal sideline was misplaced.
Unauthorized sideline was defined by the House Rules as follows:

“Unauthorized Sideline is unauthorized selling of non-MSCAS

products and promoting/doing non-MSCAS services.”

It is evident from the company’s definition that there was no

unauthorized sideline. Complainant was just asked to accompany
their client to pickup the piglets he bought from a source who is
not a client of MSCAS. Complainant merely helped in the pickup of
piglets without any consideration being asked. Complainant did not
recommend or sold the piglets. Further, he never failed to attend to
their clients’ needs. He sees to it to respond to their clients’
requests.

Even granting, without admitting, that he endorsed the

piglets, he is not liable under unauthorized sideline for the
 Reply to Respondent’s Position Paper
Francisco Olegario vs. Mustard Seed

prohibition is understood to mean that the non-MSCAS products

and services include the same products/services which are offered
by MSCAS. In the situation at bar, MSCAS is not selling piglets but
they only extend their help in disposing the piglets of their
customers thus the alleged violation of Unauthorized sideline was
not committed.

Serious Misconduct or willful

disobedience by employee
of the lawful orders of his employer

In the case of Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corporation

vs. Alcon and Papa1, the Honorable Supreme Court ruled that:

To summarize, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just

cause for dismissal, the following elements must concur: (a) the
misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of
the employee’s duties showing that the employee has become unfit to
continue working for the employer; and (c) it must have been
performed with wrongful intent.

In the case at bar, complainant helped their client to pickup

products which are not from their customer. Such misconduct if it
is so is not gross and does not relate to complainant’s duties.

Gross and habitual neglect

by the employee of his duties

Respondent’s contention that the alleged failure of the

complainant to attend to the sick piglets is a just cause to
terminate the employment of the complainant. Such contention is
not sanctioned by jurisprudence and law because in order that the
neglect is a valid cause it must be gross and habitual.

Procedural due process

substantially complied with

Respondent claimed that there is a valid cause to terminate

the complainant’s employment and respondent complied with the
notices required by law before terminating an employee. Granting
without admitting that there was a valid ground, still there was a
failure on the part of respondent to afford the complainant of his
right to be heard. Through a written suspension, complainant was
ordered to not to work for further investigation. Considering that
complainant is a lowly member of labor, not required by the letter
to explain in writing2 and having in mind that during respondent’s
investigation he will be called to explain his story before
respondent, complainant waited for respondent to order.

1 G.R. No. 194884 October 22, 2014

2
Annex “A” Letter of Suspension
 Reply to Respondent’s Position Paper
Francisco Olegario vs. Mustard Seed

Moreover, the claim that respondent’s employee advised him

to submit his written explanation was not true. If indeed
complainant was advised, considering the difficulty of being
unemployed supporting his family, complainant will surely submit
his explanation to the respondent to answer his first notice.

Instead of affording complainant of his right to be informed

and defend himself, respondent made it appear that it complied
with the notices required before termination and went to the DOLE
to submit a copy of the termination letter.

Complainant denies any malicious violation of the company’s

House Rules which warrants termination as the sanction because
the infraction if any is for him to help their customer not for
respondent losses. Moreover, any shifting of their customers from
them to other suppliers is beyond his control.

Finally, if as claimed by the respondent that it complied with

procedural due process nevertheless it failed to comply with
substantive due process still there is illegal dismissal because it is
also essential in terminating the services of an employee validly.

In the case of Aliling vs. World Express Corporation3, it was

enunciated by the Honorable Supreme that:

To justify fully the dismissal of an employee, the employer

must, as a rule, prove that the dismissal was for a just cause and
that the employee was afforded due process prior to dismissal. As a
complementary principle, the employer has the onus of proving with
clear, accurate, consistent, and convincing evidence the validity of
the dismissal.

PRAYER

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

respectfully prayed of this Honorable Tribunal that the complainant
be declared illegally dismissed, the respondent be ordered to pay
them their money claims including but not limited to overtime pay,
SIL, 13th month pay, backwages, separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fee.

Finally, complainant prays for other just and equitable relief.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

3 G.R. No. 185829 April 25, 2012

Reply to Respondent’s Position Paper
Francisco Olegario vs. Mustard Seed