COMPLAINANT, by counsel, unto this Honorable Office, respectfully states: I. THE CASE
This case filed by complainant against respondents is one for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries, non-payment of: (a.) night shift differential of 10% on top of complainants salary, (b.) service incentive leave pay which is commutable to its money equivalent at the end of the year, (c.) thirteenth (13 th ) month pay, as well as claims for reinstatement and backwages and full benefits, compensatory damages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorneys fees.
II. THE PARTIES
Complainant is of legal age, Filipino and with address at 469 C Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City; while respondents are xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, with business address # 6087 Tatalon Street, Barrio Ugong, Valenzuela City, while respondent xxxxxxxxxxxxxx is of legal age, the owner and General Manager of respondent corporation with the same address at # 6087 Tatalon Street, Barrio Ugong, Valenzuela City.
III. THE STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE
Complainant is a regular employee of respondents, he was hired by respondents on January 8, 2011 and worked as mixer operator receiving a salary of Two Hundred Ninety Two (Php 292.oo) Pesos only per day for a straight eight-hours (8 hours) night shift work from ten in the evening (10:00 pm) up to six oclock in the morning (6:00 am) without receiving the correct minimum wage and the corresponding night shift differential pay. Sometimes complainant was scheduled to work on a day shifting schedule but still respondents did not pay complainant his correct minimum wage rate. During the entire duration of complainants employment with respondents, complainant was not paid his (a.) correct minimum wage, (b.) night shift pay, (c.) service incentive leave pay, and thirteen 13 th month pay, until the time complainant was illegally dismissed by respondents from his work.
On September 1, 2012, a Saturday, complainant made known to respondents that he will be taking his rest day on the following day September 2, 2012 which is a Sunday. On said date (September 2, 2012), complainant attended a gathering with friends and on said occasion he was made drunk, nonetheless, the following day which is a Monday (September 3, 2012) complainant had still managed to report for work, however, complainant was called in by respondents to report to the office of the management for a meeting. In the said meeting, respondents asked complainant where he was last September 2, 2012 which was a Sunday, he told respondents the truth that he attended a gathering, and this situation made respondents got mad at complainant. Complainant anyway apologized for such incident even if he knows that said date (a Sunday) is a supposed rest day of worker like him.
Come September 7, 2012, after complainants work schedule, Miss Susan the secretary of respondents company told complainant that the management was mad at him when he did not report to work last Sunday (September 2, 2012) and he was told he was terminated and he cannot report to work anymore, in fact Ms. Susan had required complainant to sign the ready made resignation paper and he was told he will be receiving a substantial amount in exchange for his voluntary resignation; complainant naturally refused to sign said resignation paper because he wanted to work and not to resign from the corporation. Previous to his illegal dismissal, complainant was lucky to get ahead of his salary for that week.
After such incident, complainant was not allowed anymore to enter the company premises. Thus, he sought legal counsel and assistance from a lawyer in order to protect his rights and interest, and this case was eventually filed before this Honorable Office.
Complainant was illegally dismissed on September 7, 2012, without complainant receiving his full salaries under the minimum wage law and without receiving payment for his night differential, service incentive leave pay and thirteen (13 th ) month pay for all his entire stay when he worked with the respondents.
During the mandatory conciliation, complainant manifested his willingness to return to his work but respondents refused to accept complainant. Respondents instead offered only a settlement of a low amount compared to the amount that is lawfully due to him, hence this position paper.
IV. ISSUES
1. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO TWIN NOTICES RULE 2. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT WITH FULL BACKWAGES AND FULL BENEFITS AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE LABOR CODE
3. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO SALARY DIFFERENTIAL FOR HIS UNDERPAID SALARIES, AND MONETARY BENEFITS FOR HIS UNPAID SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY, NIGHT DIFFERENTIAL, AND THIRTEENTH (13 TH ) MONTH PAY
4. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, MORAL DAMAGES, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS FEES.
V. ARGUMENTS
Complainant is a regular employee of respondents. His services is necessary and indispensable to the business of respondents which is the production of pellets. Basically, complainants services is among the back bone of respondent business because complainant is a mixer operator.
Complainant has worked with the respondents as a regular employee, and in the absence of just and authorized causes respondents would just tell complainant not to report anymore because he was fired on alleged ground that the management was mad at him. Worst of it is the fact that he was not even afforded with the twin notices rule, that is, he was denied procedural due process of law. Complainant wanted to work, and in fact, he did not sign the pro-forma resignation letter prepared by respondents and as a consequence respondents refused to accept him to work, and this is even manifested during the mandatory conciliation of this case because respondents categorically did not want complainant to go back to work when complainant manifested before this Commission his readiness and willingness to report back to work.
The above reasons are clear indications that complainants dismissal is illegal. It is of elementary rule that in illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof is always upon the employer. In this case, respondents have no iota of evidence that they have satisfied the above discussed rights of complainant with respect to his substantial and procedural due process. No just or authorized causes exist to terminate complainant, and even assuming for the sake of argument without however admitting that one circumstance exists, the twin notices rule was not faithfully complied with. Thus, complainant dismissal is illegal hence entitles him pursuant to law the right to: a) reinstatement, b) payment of backwages until actual reinstatement, and c) full benefits.
On the issue of complainants monetary claims:
The entitlement to legal salary is both a human and international recognized statutory right of all kinds of workers. The deprivation of ones salt or salary is denying ones source of living especially if the said wage is the only bread and butter for ones family to survive and live. The reduction or underpayment of lawful wage that a worker ought to receive is likewise a violation of a workers human rights.
Complainant in this case was denied his lawfully due daily wage as mandated by law.
Respondents took advantage of the weakness and ignorance of complainant about his rights to his legal minimum wage. Respondents refused and neglected to give to complainant the correct and complete minimum wage / salary for regular employees working in Metro Manila. Thus, he is entitled to his salary differentials and interest thereof.
THE SALARY DIFFERENTIAL:
The salary differential complainant has to receive is the total amount of FORTY SEVEN THOUSAND FIFTY EIGHT Pesos (Php 47,058.oo) computed as follows, to wit:
For the first year of complainant starting January 2011, complainant was only receiving the amount of Php292.oo per day while the minimum wage for such period is Php404.oo hence there is a difference of Php112.oo per day. Thus: P112 x 5 days x 4 weeks (in a month) x 12 months in a year = Php26,880.oo
For the year 2012, February 2012 up to June 2012, complainant was also receiving the amount of Php292.oo per day while the minimum wage for such period is Php404.oo hence there is a difference of Php112.oo per day. Thus: P112 x 5 days x 4 weeks (in a month) x 5 months = Php11,200.oo
For the remaining year of 2012, that is, July 2012 to September 7, 2012, complainant was receiving only the amount of Php292.oo per day while the minimum wage for such period is Php426.oo hence there is a difference of Php134.oo per day. Thus: P134 x 67 days = Php8,978.oo
For blatant violation by respondents of non-paying rightful and legal salaries of complainant, complainant is also entitled to legal interest on his underpaid salaries.
Likewise, respondents failed and refused to pay complainants lawful right to his night differential because complainants work schedule was from 10:00 pm to 6:00 am, plus he was not paid for his service incentive leave pay and 13 th month pay.
Also, respondents are liable to pay complainant moral damages because of the wounded feelings he suffered from the respondents and the deprivation of his rights which caused him sleepless nights and anxiety. Also respondents should pay complainant exemplary damages in order to set an example to the respondents and the general public not to violate the legally mandated minimum wage and not to shortchange the salaries of complainant.
The fact that complainant has to secure the legal services of counsel in order to protect his rights and interests, complainant is entitled him to recover the allowable attorneys fees.
VI. RELIEFS SOUGHT
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully moved that a judgment be rendered against the respondents declaring them guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering the reinstatement of complainant with full backwages until actual reinstatement with full benefits, and ordering the respondents, jointly and severally, to pay complainant the following:
a.) The amount of FORTY SEVEN THOUSAND FIFTY EIGHT Pesos (Php 47,058.oo) Pesos representing the underpaid salaries of complainant, plus legal interest thereon until full payment;
b.) The payment of complainants night shift differential;
c.) The payment of complainants service incentive leave pay;
d.) The thirteenth month pay of complainant for his entire stay with the respondents;
e.) The amount of Ten Thousand (Php10,000.oo) as moral damages;
f.) The amount of Ten Thousand (Php10,000.oo) as exemplary damages; and
g.) The equivalent of 10% of the total judgment award as attorneys fees.
Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are likewise sought.
Mandaluyong City for Quezon City, October 30, 2012.