REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION National Capital Region Quezon

City Labor Arbiter Quintin B. Cueto III

MARIO L. LAURON, Complainant, - versus INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL RECONSTRUCTION &/or MR. ISAAC BEKALO, MARISSA ESPINELI, ALDEN SECRETARIO & JULIAN GONSALVES, Respondents. x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x NLRC NCR Case No. 03-03920-12

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS

Complainant Mario L. Lauron, by himself, respectfully requests that this Honorable Office deny the Respondents Motion to Dismiss, filed on April 25, 2012, and in support of this opposition, hereby states:

INTRODUCTION Labor and Social Legislation, Labor Code and Technical Rules of Procedures may be relaxed in labor cases to serve the demands of substantial justice and to serve the paramount principle that the State shall afford full protection of labor.

DISCUSSION 1. In a long line of decisions, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled

that the application of technical rules of procedure in labor cases may be relaxed to serve the demands of substantial justice. It is the spirit and intention of the Law that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain that protection for labor is provided in each case without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of social justice.

Rule IV of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure which provides that: SECTION 1. VENUE. a) All cases which Labor Arbiters have authority to hear and decide may be filed in the Regional Arbitration branch having jurisdiction over the workplace of the complainant or petitioner. In Samaniego v. Westmont Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Court held: This provision is obviously permissive, for the said section uses the word "may," allowing a different venue when the interests of substantial justice demand a different one. In any case, as stated earlier, the Constitutional protection accorded to labor is a paramount and compelling factor, provided the venue chosen is not altogether oppressive to the employer (G.R. Nos. 147407-08, February 20, 2006). In Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. NLRC, it was held: The question of venue essentially relates to the trial and touches more upon the convenience of the parties, rather than upon the substance and merits of the case. Our permissive rules underlying provisions on venue are intended to assure convenience for the plaintiff and his witnesses and to promote the ends of justice. This axiom all the more finds applicability in cases involving labor and management because of the principle, paramount in our jurisdiction, that the State shall afford full protection to labor (G.R. No. 117650, March 7, 1996, 254 SCRA 506).

2.

The complainant presently resides in Taguig City in the National

Capital Region, hence filing his complaint before the Regional Arbitration Branch in Quezon City is simply the most equitable and convenient under the circumstances. The Regional Arbitration Branch in Calamba City, Laguna, is very far and inaccessible, not only from the complainants place of residence, but also from the respondents company located in Silang, Cavite. In fact, the law offices in Makati City of the respondents counsel, Sycip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan, is much closer to Quezon City than to Calamba City.

3.

There is no compelling reason to grant the respondents motion to

dismiss without doing violence to the constitutional mandate affording full protection to labor. Venue is proper in this Honorable Office. It is improper to entertain the respondents on a mere technicality. Respondents motion should be given scant consideration to give way to the more substantial matter of equitably providing the complainant with meaningful remedies to present his case with convenience, accessibility and expediency.

4.

The respondents already slept on its right to file a motion to dismiss

before this Honorable office and are forever barred to do so as provided by Rule V of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, which states:

SECTION 5. PROHIBITED PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS. - The following pleadings and motions shall not be allowed and acted upon nor elevated to the Commission: a) Motion to dismiss the complaint except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, improper venue, res judicata, prescription and forum shopping; xxx

SECTION 6. MOTION TO DISMISS. - Before the date set for the mandatory conciliation and mediation conference, the respondent may file a motion to dismiss on grounds provided under Section 5, paragraph (a) hereof. xxx SECTION 7. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE. - No motion to dismiss shall be allowed or entertained after the lapse of the period provided in Section 6 hereof. (n)

5.

The respondents earlier received the SUMMONS, dated March 13,

2012, to appear before this Office for a mandatory conciliation and mediation conference scheduled on April 11 & 25, 2012. Despite the sufficient length of time to file a motion to dismiss before the scheduled date of the mandatory conference, the respondents, through counsel, only filed such motion on April 25, 2011 already fifteen (15) days from the start of the first scheduled mandatory conference on April 11, 2012, in contravention of the above 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure.

6.

During the scheduled mandatory conference last April 11 & 25, 2012,

the respondents, through counsel, represented by Atty. Margarita R. Alias of Sycip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan Law Office, appeared and participated in such conference. In fact, the respondents, through counsel, already engaged in the

process of exploring the possibility of settlement. Clearly, by fully participating in such mandatory conference, the respondents are forever barred to file a motion to dismiss.

7.

The Authorization Letter, signed by all the respondents, dated April 9,

2012, expressly states:

The International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) and its officers (Isaac Bekalo, Marissa Espineli, Alden Secretario and Julian Gonsalves) authorize Sycip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan Law Offices to represent the Institute and its officers during the conference scheduled on April 11 and 25, 2012 related to the complaint (NLRC NCR Case No. 0303920-12) of Mario L. Lauron filed against IIRR and its above mentioned officers. 8. The above Authorization Letter submitted by Atty. Margarita R. Alias

to this Office on April 11, 2012, clearly expressed that Sycip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan Law Offices is specifically and exclusively authorized to represent the respondents only in the matters related to the scheduled mandatory conference.

9.

During the mandatory conference held on April 11, 2012, Atty.

Margarita R. Alias made an oral manifestation before this Honorable Office that the above mentioned counsel does not intend to represent the respondents on other matters of procedure outside of the scheduled mandatory conference.

10.

Obviously, the above mentioned Law Office is lacking of the proper

authority necessary to represent and legally bind the respondents in any other matter of procedure outside of the mandatory conference. Hence, the Motion to

Dismiss submitted by Atty. Margarita A. Alias before this Honorable Office on April 25, 2012 is deemed a mere scrap of paper as it was filed by a lawyer not authorized to do so.

CONCLUSION 11. This case, which is already well underway, should continue in this Dismissing or

forum without the delays inherent in the requested dismissal.

transferring this case would frustrate rather than further the prompt and efficient

resolution of this case in protecting the integrity of the administrative adjudication procedures of this Honorable Office on behalf of the protection of labor whose interests it represents.

12.

In view of the foregoing, it is submitted that the motion should be

immediately denied for lack of merit, improper, unauthorized and unwarranted under the circumstances.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Office DENY the respondents motion, dated April 24, 2012, and order the continuous conduct of this arbitration proceedings until finally resolved. Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION

Labor Arbiter Quintin B. Cueto III National Labor Relations Commission Quezon City The undersigned complainant is respectfully submitting the forgoing opposition to the respondents motion to dismiss for the consideration of the Honorable Labor Arbiter immediately upon receipt hereof. This 2nd day of May 2012 at Quezon City, Philippines.

MARIO L. LAURON Complainant

COPY FURNISHED:

SYCIP SALAZAR HERNANDEZ & GATMAITAN Counsel for Respondents 4th Floor, SycipLaw Center 105 Paseo de Roxas, Makati City Tel No. 982-3500; Fax No. 817-3896 E-mail: sshg@syciplaw.com

Received by:

ATTY. MARGARITA A. ALIAS Date: ____________________________