Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch
Cordillera Administrative Region

PEPITO J. MANALOTO,
Complainant,

NLRC Case No. RAB-CAR-12-0737-14

FOR
-versus-
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL

WOW KALABAW
RECRUITMENT AGENCY, INC.
And its President Luis D. Matangbaka,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER OF THE COMPLAINANT

PEPITO MANALOTO

With all due respect and reverence for the

Honorable Labor Arbiter.

Pepito J. Manaloto, through the undersigned and unto the

Honorable Labor Arbiter, respectfully, reverently, and humbly avers as
follows:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

At the core of the instant Complaint is the issue of respect and
good faith which parties owe to each other when they decide to bind
themselves by contract.
This issue comes to the fore even more so when the one of the
parties to the contract is a laborer, whom the fundamental law protects
from exploitation and unfair treatment.

The Complainant had a 24-month contract with the Respondents,

for him to be able to work overseas as a master plumber in
Copenhagen, Denmark.

He was lured away from Denmark by the representation that he

was an exemplary employee and that he would best serve the principal
1 Manaloto v. Wow Kalabaw Recruitment Agency Inc., & Luis D.
Matangbaka
NLRC CASE NO. RAB-CAR 12-0737-14
employer in Japan, on the same salary and with the same benefits as
stated in his contract. Upon arrival in the Philippines however, this
promise and representation sadly did not materialize. Contrary to the
reassurances made to the Complainant, there were no available
Japanese working visas for the position of master plumber.

The Complainant is now seeking redress before the Honorable

Labor Arbiter, for the recovery of the salaries corresponding to the
unexpired term of his overseas employment contract.

No compromise between the parties was reached despite no less

than three (3) conferences held before this Honorable Office. Thus, the
parties were directed to prepare their respective Position Papers. This is
the Complainant’s humble compliance with the Honorable Labor
Arbiter’s order.

THE PARTIES
The Complainant is of legal age, married, Filipino and a resident
of #734, Cypress Point Irisan, Baguio City;

The Respondent Company is a recruitment agency duly organized

under the laws of the Philippines and doing business at 6540 Dela
Rosa Street, Ayala Ave, Makati City where it may be served with
summons and other court processes. The individual Respondent
Matangbaka is its President.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1. Sometime in the month of March 2017, the Complainant read in
Manila Bulletin newspaper that the Respondents were in need of
Overseas Filipino Workers to be sent to Denmark;

2. After reading the classified ad, the Complainant prepared the

documents that he needed therefor. From Baguio he travelled by
bus to Manila in order to apply for the position of Master
Plumber;

3. When the Complainant found his way to Respondents’ office, he

saw a note at on the bulletin board that their agency was awarded
by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) as
POEA Top Performer & Award of Excellence Awardee. Upon seeing
the post, the Complainant felt more confident to apply. He knew
that he would be sent to Denmark legally as an overseas worker;

4. The Respondents successfully processed the Complainant’s

documents. Thereafter, the Complainant was informed that he
was one of the persons hired to work under GUNHILD
DEVELOPERS LTD., the principal employer, in Copenhagen,
Denmark. He then attended the Pre-Departure Orientation
Seminar of the Respondents and was issued a Certificate of
Attendance clearly stating that his skill/occupation was that of a
2 Manaloto v. Wow Kalabaw Recruitment Agency Inc., & Luis D.
Matangbaka
NLRC CASE NO. RAB-CAR 12-0737-14
 scaffolder foreman. A Copy of said Certificate of Attendance is
hereby attached as Annex “A”;

5. On June 25, 2017, the Complainant returned to the respondents’

office and affixed his signature to the Manual Contract of
Employment which stated he was employed by the GUNHILD
DEVELOPERS LTD. The said Manual Contract of Employment
duly signed by the parties is hereby attached as Annex “B”;

6. The contract clearly states that the duration thereof would not
exceed twenty-four (months) and that the Complainant’s
employment would start on the date of his departure;

7. It was also stated in the contract that the Complainant was

employed to perform services in the job classification of Master
Plumber and to work on the Employer’s Heineken Brewery
Expansion project with a monthly base salary of KR 7640 (seven
thousand six hundred forty kroner) for a full forty-eight (48)
hours base workweek, to be paid in US Dollars;

8. On June 27, 2017, the Complainant attended the Pre-Departure

Orientation seminar given and required by the Respondents. Also
on the said date, the Respondents gave the Complainant a
Guarantee Letter stating that GUNHILD DEVELOPERS LTD. will
meet them at the Copenhagen Airport. A copy of Said guarantee
letter is attached as Annex “C”;

9. On June 30, 2017, the Complainant, together with other

workers, flew to Denmark to commence their employment. As
stated in the Manual Contract of Employment, the Complainant
worked as Master Plumber on the HEINEKEN BREWERY
EXPANSION PROJECT of GUNHILD DEVELOPERS LTD;

10. In the month of January 2018 the Complainant was handed a

memo. The memo stated that the Respondents received a notice
that the GUNHILD Company was inviting some of its exemplary
workers to transfer to its other project in Japan. Included in the
notice was a master list were names of workers who were being
asked to transfer. The Complainant was among these workers;

11. After seeing his name included in the master list of the workers,
the Complainant went to see and talked to a certain Miguel
Santander, the foreman superintendent in the work site, to ask
the latter about the supposed transfer of workers to Japan;

12. Santander then confirmed the news to the Complainant.

Santander told him “Wen pare, walang problema basta kita-kita
tayo duon, lahat din tayo pag natapos itong taon na ito, lahat din
tayong mga trabahador dito sa Denmark. lilipat din sa Africa kasi
may isang project din doon yung GUNHILD (yes, friend, there is

3 Manaloto v. Wow Kalabaw Recruitment Agency Inc., & Luis D.

Matangbaka
NLRC CASE NO. RAB-CAR 12-0737-14
 no problem with this transfer we are all going to see each other in
Japan anyway after this year, there will be another project there.)”;

13. With the reassurance of his supervisor Mr. Santander, the

Complainant agreed to be transferred but only on the condition
that he would work in Japan for the same salary rate and
position. Mr. Santander told him that he had nothing to worry
about;

14. On January 24, 2018, the principal employer posted the names
of workers who were to return to the Philippines and process their
visas for Japan before being transferred thereto, through the
Respondents. The Complainant saw his name on the list so he
prepared his things for the flight, the expenses for which were
shouldered by the principal employer;

15. On January 26, 2018, the Complainant arrived in Manila and

went straight home to Baguio City to see his family before
proceeding again to the office of the Respondents;

16. After a week in Baguio, he returned to Manila for the processing

of his visa with the Respondents. Upon his arrival in the
Respondents Office, the Complainant was given a letter
commending him for a job well done, “inviting” him to work in
other projects of the principal employer. Said letter is hereto
attached as Annex “D”;

17. The Complainant then was informed by the officer in-charge in

the Respondents’ office that the only available visa is for crew
workers, and that as of that time, there were no available visas for
Master Plumber, the position which the Complainant held in
Denmark;

18. The officer in-charge then told the Complainant “mag-ano ka

nalang ka as crew, pagdating mo duon mag hang-up ka (just sign
up as crew first, and then when you get there, you can ‘hang up’).”
The term “hang-up” meant that one may apply as crew and when
one was already at the job site, he can work under a different
position, in the Complainant’s case, as a Master Plumber

19. The Complainant did not accede to this suggestion as he knew

that the principal employer had no policy of hiring a worker for a
designated position and then changing the said position later on;

20. The Complainant declined the offer. He knew that what the
officer-in-charge was telling him was not in consonance with the
principal employer’s policy. Nowhere was it stated or practiced
that a worker could apply as crew but eventually work as foreman
in the job site. The Complainant refused to apply as crew and
stated that he would just wait for his master plumber visa;

4 Manaloto v. Wow Kalabaw Recruitment Agency Inc., & Luis D.

Matangbaka
NLRC CASE NO. RAB-CAR 12-0737-14
 21. The in-charge just told the Complainant “Urayem lang garud
ah, nu han mo kayat daytoy crew (just wait then if you do not want
to apply as crew);”

22. The Complainant found a place for board and lodging in Manila
while waiting for his Master Plumber visa;

23. Between the month of January to April, the Respondents’

representative called the Complainant three times asking him
“ayaw mo ba itong sa crew papuntang Japan rin naman? (don’t
you want to apply as crew, you’re going to be sent to Japan
anyway). The Complainant declined and replied, “hihintayin ko
nalang yung visa papuntang Japan para sa mga Master Plumber
(I will just wait for the Master Plumber visas)”;

24. The Complainant refused the Respondents’ entreaties for him to

work as crew for GUNHILD DEVELOPERS LTD. since he was a
Master Plumber for the latter, as stated in the contract he signed.
The salary of a crew worker is much lower than the salary of a
Master Plumber;

25. From February to June 2018, the Complainant waited for his
visa but no visa for master plumber came. Jobless and quickly
running out of money and resources in Manila, he decided to go
back to home to Baguio;
26. The Complainant spent the remaining 17 months of his
unexpired contract here in the Philippines, as the Respondents
failed to deploy him to Japan. In effect, from the moment the
Complainant returned to the Philippines on January 26, 2018
up to the supposed end of his overseas employment contract
twenty-four (24) months from June 30, 2019, he had already been
constructively dismissed although he was made to believe that he
was to finish the remainder of his employment contract in Japan;

27. Upon the Complainant’s return to his place of residence, he

filed the instant complaint against the Respondents on July 2,
2018;

28. This Honorable Office scheduled August 4, 2018 and

September 14, 2018 as conferences dates for the Complainant
and Respondents to meet. On said dates, counsel for the
Respondents appeared and implored the Complainant “pangaasi
yu man ta areglo pay laeng, Nu mabalin ket dumawdawat ak ti
areglo. Han ka pay umuna apan ti Attorney ta katungtung ko pay
kliyentek nu anya kunada ta katuntungen da sika nga usto.
Agtext ak to kenka nu haan agtext ka kanyak (please, let us settle
this, there is no need to pursue this complaint. Please do not seek
the services of counsel first. Let me talk to my clients first and ask
them to speak with you amicably. Let us keep in touch)”;

5 Manaloto v. Wow Kalabaw Recruitment Agency Inc., & Luis D.

Matangbaka
NLRC CASE NO. RAB-CAR 12-0737-14
 29. The Complainant agreed to the entreaties of opposing counsel.
The Complainant and counsel for the Respondents exchanged cell
phone numbers for them to be able to stay in contact with each
other;

30. On September 29,2018, the Complainant sent an SMS message

to Respondents’ counsel asking “Sir, kumusta? Anong balita sa
WOW KALABAW? (Sir, any news? What did the Respondents
say?)”;

31. The Respondents’ Attorney replied “tumatawad sila na kung

pwede daw hatiin yung buwan (my clients are asking if you would
agree to receive half of your claim)” Although the Complainant
knew that he deserves to receive the full equivalent of the
unexpired portion of his contract, seventeen (17) months, he
acceded to the request of the Respondents’ counsel, if only to
amicably settle the matter;

32. No further communications between the Complainant and

Respondents’ counsel ensued. On the third conference before the
Honorable Labor Arbiter set on October 12, 2018, the
Respondents’ attorney again tried to re-negotiate, although the
Complainant already agreed to the compromise offer earlier made;

33. Respondents through counsel offered anew to pay just one

month of the unexpired portion of the contract. The Complainant
was told “Uray ket idi agawid kayo, January 26, 2018, ada met ti
bonus yu nga one month (after all, when you came back from Abu
Dhabi on January 26, 2010, you were given a bonus of one month)
”;

34. The Complainant answered the Respondents’ Attorney “Rules

ti company dayta nga Attorney, ada dyay one month give away
nga maala every worker da (But attorney, that is part of the
principal employer’s rules, every worker receives a one month give
away)”;

35. The third conference for amicable settlement failed because the
Complainant did not agree to the request of the Respondents,
which was unconscionable and struck in bad faith, after the
Complainant already accepted the previous offer of half his
original claim;

36. By virtue of the unfair and unjust acts of the Respondents in

making the Complainant believe that he had the same job and
position waiting for him in a different country, based on his
overseas employment contract, he has suffered serious anxiety,
wounded feelings and sleepless nights. The Complainant even
turned down employment in New Zealand because he was waiting
to be deployed by the Respondents as Master Plumber in Japan;

6 Manaloto v. Wow Kalabaw Recruitment Agency Inc., & Luis D.

Matangbaka
NLRC CASE NO. RAB-CAR 12-0737-14
 37. Furthermore, the unfair and unconscionable actuations of
Respondent Company, and their negotiations made in bad faith,
left the Complainant no other option but to pursue the instant
case and eventually employ the services of counsel for the
preparation of his Position Paper. He has also incurred travel and
other miscellaneous expenses in the pursuit hereof;

ISSUES
WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED
WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT
OF THE UNEXPIRED PORTION OF HIS OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT
CONTRACT
WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

There is no basis in law and in
the overseas employment
contract to substantiate the
pre-termination of the
Complainant’s employment.

The Complainant was commended for being an exemplary worker by

the Respondents and the principal employee. While he was in Denmark,
he was told that he was to be transferred to the principal employer’s
work site in Japan.

The Complainant was supposed to render full, satisfactory and

continuous service for the principal employer for a period not to exceed
Twenty-four (24) Months.1 He was even highly commended by the
Respondents for his services rendered for the principal employer and
has not given just cause for the termination of his services. This was
the very reason why he was supposed to transfer to the principal
employer’s workplace in Japan.

He was not even informed that his services under the overseas
employment contract were already being terminated. The Complainant
believed in all honesty and good faith that he was merely going to be
transferred to a different work site, under his original contract.

As a matter of fact, the Complainant was promised even when he

was in Denmark, that he was among the workers to be transferred to
another work place of the principal employer in Japan. The
Complainant returned to the Philippines in the hopes of being
transferred to a different work place, without any fundamental
demotion in position and in pay.

1 Clause 1.3 Duration of Assignment, Page 2, Annex “B.”

7 Manaloto v. Wow Kalabaw Recruitment Agency Inc., & Luis D.
Matangbaka
NLRC CASE NO. RAB-CAR 12-0737-14
 Neither was there any authorized cause for the pre-termination of
the Complainant’s overseas employment contract. To reiterate, as this
fact cannot be emphasized enough, the Complainant was repatriated
and he returned to Manila with the promise that his papers, travel and
other necessary documents for his transfer to the work site in Africa
would be processed by the Respondents in the Philippines. He did not
know that this meant the end of his employment as scaffolder foreman.

The Respondents reneged on this promise and accordingly

breached their contract when they could not send the Complainant to
Japan as a chief electrician for the remainder of the term in the overseas
employment contract. He was reassured of his transfer to Japan.

Instead, the Respondents kept trying to make the Complainant

disregard his original overseas employment contract and reapply as a
crew worker for the principal employer in Japan, whose salary and job
description were lower and different, respectively, from the salary as
provided in his contract and the duties he was supposed to render as
Master Plumber. The term stated in the original overseas contract
lapsed without the Complainant being deployed.

Under the Sec. 10 of the Migrant Workers’ Act (R.A. 8042) as

modified by the decision of the Supreme Court in Serrano v. Gallant
Maritime Services, Inc. et al.2, “ x x x In case of termination of overseas
employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law
or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of
his placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus
his salaries for the unexpired portion of his unemployment
contract (emphasis supplied).”

The Complainant was in effect

illegally dismissed by the
Respondents. He was made to
wait for the fruition of a
representation that never
materialized. The acts of the
Respondents gives rise to an
actionable wrong compensable
by way of damages.

The Complainant, upon returning to the Philippines from Denmark only

after serving a little over seven (7) months of the original term of twenty-
four (24) months in the overseas employment contract, spent the rest
of the said period waiting to be deployed as master plumber.

He duly cooperated with the Respondents when he was told that

he was merely going to be transferred from Denmark to Japan, believing
in bona fides that he would still have the same position and salary
waiting for him in another continent.
2 G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009; which struck down as unconstitutional the subject
clause “or for three moths for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less”
8 Manaloto v. Wow Kalabaw Recruitment Agency Inc., & Luis D.
Matangbaka
NLRC CASE NO. RAB-CAR 12-0737-14
 During the period from January 26, 2018, when the Complainant
returned to the Philippines up to the supposed expiry of the overseas
employment contract on June 30, 2019, he was constrained to spend
his time going back and forth to the Respondents Makati Office,
querying on end if there were any available master plumber openings
in the principal employer’s Japan work site. During that entire period
Complainant was away from his home and his family, unproductive,
and without work. As a bread winner for his family, the Complainant’s
unemployment for the remainder of the period stated in his overseas
employment contract has caused untold hardships for himself and his
family.

The Respondents had the obligation to deploy the Complainant as

a master plumber for the duration of the contract which he duly signed
with the principal employer, through the office of the Respondents.

Their failure to do so upon his return to the Philippines, and the

insidious manner wherein the Respondents tried to make the
Complainant apply for a different job position with a much lower salary
clearly contravenes the tenor of their obligation to the Complainant.

Seeing that his overseas employment contract had ended without

him being deployed to Africa as he was promised and as he was made
to believe, he immediately returned home and filed the instant
complaint for illegal dismissal.

The Respondents made the

Complainant believe that he
was going to be transferred to
Africa under the same terms
and conditions in the overseas
employment contract he
originally signed. They have
failed to do so, and accordingly,
have failed to keep their end of
the bargain that the
Complainant was to be
employed for a full period not
exceeding twenty-four (24)
months.

Had it not been for the representations of the Respondents

representatives to the workers in Abu Dhabi, the complainant would
not have agreed to return to the Philippines.

The project which the principal employer was working on was not
yet completed when the Complainant left the work site therein.
Furthermore, he was told that he was going to be transferred to Africa
with the same terms and conditions as stated in his overseas contract
of employment. It was to his great surprise and dismay that there were
9 Manaloto v. Wow Kalabaw Recruitment Agency Inc., & Luis D.
Matangbaka
NLRC CASE NO. RAB-CAR 12-0737-14
no available openings for master plumber in Japan, upon his return to
the Philippines.

The Complainant was unjustifiably made to expect that he had

the same position and salary waiting for him in the principal employer’s
project in Japan. Little did he know during that time that this was just
a ploy to end his contract prematurely.

Upon his return to the Philippines, the Complainant was then

commended for his excellent service and given a letter “inviting” him to
participate in “new assignments” for the principal employer. The
Respondents sent him this letter knowing fully well that the term of the
Complainant’s original contract had not yet expired, as there was still
the remaining seventeen (17) months.

Thereafter, the Respondents tried to make the Complainant to

agree to re-apply anew as a crew worker for the principal employer, a
position that entailed a demotion in pay and in position. This is why the
Complainant refused and instead opted to wait for an opening as master
plumber.

The effect of the failure of the Respondents to deploy the

Complainant to Japan on the same terms and conditions in the
overseas employment contract he signed with them considering that the
duration of the said contract has not yet expired constitutes breach of
contract.

The Complainant has also incurred expenses during the entire

time of his stay in Manila while waiting for the Respondents to deploy
him as a master plumber in Africa. The representations of the
Respondents that he had nothing to worry about when he left his post
in Denmark in order for him to be deployed eventually to Japan without
diminution in salary and position only for this promise to fail has
caused the Complainant sleepless nights, mental anguish and anxiety.

The Respondents should be prevented from committing similar

acts of making representations to other overseas Filipino workers,
repatriating them prior to the term stated in their contracts in order for
them to be redeployed anew to a different work site abroad, under the
same terms and conditions, when in truth and in fact, there are no
available openings that correspond to the position for which the worker
applied for. They should be penalized as a warning for them not to treat
others in the overseas work force by being made to pay exemplary
damages in favor of the Complainant.

Lastly, the Complainant was constrained to hire the services of

counsel for the preparation of his Position Paper do to the unjustified
acts of the Respondents who bargained with him in bad faith.

PRAYER
10 Manaloto v. Wow Kalabaw Recruitment Agency Inc., & Luis D.
Matangbaka
NLRC CASE NO. RAB-CAR 12-0737-14
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most humbly and
respectfully prayed that the Honorable Labor Arbiter render judgment
declaring that the Complainant has been illegally dismissed by the
Respondents, and order the payment of his salaries for the seventeen
(17)-month period corresponding to the term of the contract that the
Complainant was unable to serve due to his repatriation without just
or authorized cause, including other benefits which he is entitled to, as
well as moral and exemplary damages; and 10% of the total award as
reasonable attorney’s fees.

The Complainant likewise prays for such other reliefs and

remedies just and equitable under the premises.

Baguio City, this 2nd day of July 2018 2011.

_______________________________
Counsel for the Complainant
Roll No. _________
IBP Lifetime Membership No. _________________
PTR No. ________________________________

EXPLANATION
Due to time and distance constraints, the foregoing position paper was
served through registered mail.

____________________________
Counsel for the Complainant

Copy furnished:

Wow Kalabaw Recruitment Agency

& Luis Matangbaka, Pres. Registry Receipt:
Date:
6540 Dela Rosa Street, Ayala Ave, Makati City

11 Manaloto v. Wow Kalabaw Recruitment Agency Inc., & Luis D.

Matangbaka
NLRC CASE NO. RAB-CAR 12-0737-14