Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City
EDSIL VESTIL BACALSO et al.,
Complainants,

-versus-
NLRC NCR CASE NO. 04-04886-13
Labor Arbiter: Alberto Dolosa
INSTITUTE FOR POLITICAL and
ELECTORAL REFORM et al,
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------------x

COMMENT to Complainants’
Manifestation and Motion dated
15 September 2014

COMES NOW respondents, by the undersigned counsel, unto the

Honorable Labor Arbiter most respectfully state:

1. That there is no merit to the complainant’s Motion to Cite

Indirect Contempt the Executive Director and the Board of Directors
of respondent Institute for Political and Electoral Reform;

2. That this is because the President of the respondent institute,

Mr. Noel Medina, upon receipt of the Decision of the Honorable
Labor Arbiter, signed an Order dated August 1, 2014 addressed to
complainants Mr. Bacalso and Ms. Hupping for them to report to
work on August 11, 2014;

3. Both complainant did report on that day but later on made clear
their objectives in doing so, which is only to orchestrate an uncanny
situation that they can use to hit back again the respondents after they
lost the instant case;
 4. Noteworthy to mention that when respondents issued the return
to work order to the complainants it did so in good faith with the
earnest intention of having them back;

5. This is notwithstanding that it is currently having issues for

lack of viable projects as its main line of activity refers to local or
national elections which is no where near yet in the Philippine
horizon;

6. Thus, when the complainants reported for work on August 11,

2014 they were informed that they will have to wait still for a moment
as the task or functions that were originally assigned to them was at
that time assigned to other employees of the institute;

7. It was explained to them that it will be impractical and very

unprofessional if just to accommodate their return some of their co-
employees will be weeded out of work;

8. Noteworthy to mention that when the complainants filed the

instant case, the jobs that they had were entrusted to other employees
for purposes of continuity in the organization;

9. Since the Honorable Labor Arbiter only gave the respondents a

period of ten (10) days only to reinstate the complainants, this period
proves insufficient to effectively placed the complainants running
again within the respondent’s system;

10. But this does not mean that the respondent was not sincere in
its resolved to accept back again the complainants;

11. For it was discussed during the Board of Director Meetings of

the respondent institute that notwithstanding complainants will be
made to wait a while, their waiting will still be compensated, meaning
their salaries will be paid;

12. But as stated above, the issue here is not the sincerity of the
respondents in ordering the complainants back to work, but the
sincerity of the complainants in accepting back their work;

13. On August 11, 2014, Mr. Bacalso and Ms. Hupping did report
for work in the Institute;

14. That Mr. Bacalso thereafter failed to report for work on August
12, 2014;

15. That, Ms. Hupping arrived at 8:30am on August 12, 2014,

signed her DTR, took pictures of the premises of the Institute, and
then left at 12:00nn without permission and failed to come back;

3
 16. That, both Mr. Bacalso and Ms. Hupping arrived late at the
same time at 10:10 am on August 13, 2014, signed their respective
DTRs, took some more pictures inside the office, and left at 12:00nn
without permission and failed to come back;

17. That, Ms Hupping arrived late at 10:10am of August 14, 2014

and left the office without permission at 2:15pm and failed to come
back;

18. That, Mr. Bacalso arrived late at 10:25am on August 14, 2014
and left the office without permission at 1:00pm and failed to come
back;

19. That, both Mr. Bacalso and Ms. Hupping failed to report for
work on Friday, August 15, 2014 until 2:00pm, when the office was
closed;
r
(See the Daily Time Records of the complainants which are attached
herein as ANNEXES “A to D” to form an integral part hereof);

20. In fact, on the very first day that complainant Bacalso reported
for work he already argued with the Executive Director of the institute
for he is asking for a leave which the latter refused;

21. Thereafter, they came and go as it pleases them, coming in late,

going out early, taking pictures of the premises, never really
manifesting a sincere intention to work again;

22. To settle, this issue once and for all, respondents challenged the
complainants to show their sincerity in working again with the
respondent institute by reporting for work soonest possible time and
show more work ethics by cooperating and coordinating with their
superiors in the institute on how they can be given task and functions
without prejudicing their co-employees who certainly should not be
displaced just because they are coming in;

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents prays for the denial of

the instant motion for lack of merit in law and in fact.

Quezon City. September 23, 2014

ATTY. PEARLITO B. CAMPANILLA

Suite B 2nd Floor Overland Park Building No. 245
 Banawe Street corner Quezon Avenue Quezon City
PTR 7723803 01-18-13 QC
LM IBP 010564 02-03-12 Pasig City
Roll No. 37522
MCLE Compliance No. IV – 0018064, 4-25-13 Pasig City

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. NICOLAS BARRIATOS

Counsel for the Complainants
c/o Unit 305 WEB-JET Building
64 Quezon Avenue, Cor. BMA Avenue,
1100 Quezon City