Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City
ARTURO J. ARNOCO,
Complainants,
-versus-

NLRC NCR CASE NO. 01-00982-13

ZANDER TRUCKING SERVICES

FORMERLY TEDSTAR MOVERS /
TEODORO SEA/ ZANDER H. SEA
Respondents,
x-------------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
RESPONDENTS ZANDER TRUCKING SERVICES and
ZANDER H. SEA, by the undersigned counsel and unto the Honorable
Labor Arbiter most respectfully state:

RESPONDENTS DENY THAT THERE

EXISTS AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP IN THE INSTANT CASE
In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the
employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee was for a valid
cause. However, before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an
employer-employee relationship must FIRST be established.
In filing a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal
based on the premise that she was an employee of respondent, it is
INCUMBENT upon petitioner to PROVE the employee-employer
relationship by substantial evidence.(LOLITA LOPEZ vs. BODEGA
CITY; G.R. No. 155731, September 3, 2007)
PARTIES
Complainant ARTURO J. ARNOCO, is of legal age, Filipino, with
address 6295 CF Natividad St., Mapulang Lupa, Valenzuela, where he
1

may be served with pleadings, orders, resolutions, decision and other

processes;
Respondent ZANDER TRUCKING SERVICES (ZANDER) is an
entity duly established under Philippine Laws, with office address at 9
Baler St., SFDM, Quezon City, where it may be served with pleadings,
orders, resolutions, decision and other processes;
Individual Respondent ZANDER H. SEA, is of legal age, Filipino
citizen, with office address as that of the respondent entity;
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
This is a complaint for illegal dismissal (actual), payment of
benefits and damages filed by the complainant against the respondents.
Respondent ZANDER is an enterprise engaged in the trucking business.
At the outset, respondents categorically DENY that the complainant
is an employee of respondent ZANDER.
Likewise, respondents categorically deny all of the claims of the
complainant in the complaint as they are all a complete fabrication. His
claim that he was allegedly employed with the respondents since 1993
with a salary of 10000 are all LIES.
That the case filed by the complainant is merely an attempt to
extort money from the respondent ZANDER and should not be allowed to
prosper by the Honorable Arbiter.
Attesting to the fact that the complainant is NOT an employee of
Respondent ZANDER is the Sinumpaang Salaysay duly executed by
bona fide employees of respondent ZANDER, namely: Elizar Sesaldan
(helper), Gerardo Noarin (helper), Dexter Baybayan (helper), Enrique
Mungcal (driver) and Dennis Baybayan (driver).
In the aforesaid affidavit, the said employees stated under oath that:
Kami xxx ay malaya at kusang loob na
nagpapatunay na si ARTURO ARNUCO, sa aming
personal na pagkakaalam ay hindi trabahador at
kailanman ay hindi naging trabahador ng
naturang kompanyang ZANDER TRUCKING
SERVICES na kung saan ay matagal tagal na rin
kaming naglilingkod.
A copy of the Sinumpaang Salaysay is hereto attached as
ANNEX 1 and made an integral part hereof.
2

Accordingly, there being NO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE

RELATIONSHIP between the complainant and respondent ZANDER,
herein respondents cannot be held liable to the complainants complaint;
ISSUE/S
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT
EMPLOYEE OF THE RESPONDENTS;

IS

AN

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE TO

THE COMPLAINANTS CLAIM
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS
These two issues being interrelated, they are discussed together as
follows:
The current list of employees of Respondent ZANDER does not
reflect that the complainant is an employee of the respondents. Thus, the
respondents deny that they are liable to his concocted claims;
If the complainant alleges that he is an employee of the respondent
ZANDER, then he must present evidences to prove such allegation.
The decision of the Highest Tribunal in this issue is settled to the
effect that:
Certainly, elementary as a hornbook
doctrine is the evidentiary rule in our jurisdiction
that bare allegations do not constitute evidence at
all, but the same are self-serving at best (Tuason v.
Court of Appeals 241 SCRA 295 (1995);
Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by
evidence are not equivalent to proof, under the
Rules of Court (Manzano v. Perez 362 SCRA 430
(2001);
An allegation in pleading is not evidence,
but that it has to be proved by evidence (Reyes v.
CA 383 SCRA (2002);
Allegations must be proven by sufficient
evidence mere allegations is not evidence
3

(Ramoran v. Jardine Carb Life Insurance Co. Inc.,

326 SCRA 208 (2000);
To reiterate, the BARE ALLEGATIONS of the complainant that he
is an employee of the respondents should be backed up by him with
credible and sufficient proof.
In the recent case of LOLITA LOPEZ vs. BODEGA CITY (G.R.
No. 155731, September 3, 2007), the Honorable Supreme Court reiterated
the rules regarding the burden of proof on whether or not an employeremployee relationship exists between the parties, citing the cases of
Martinez v. NLRC, 339 Phil. 176, 183 (1997); Rufina Patis Factory v.
Alusitain, 434 SCRA 418; Imperial Victory Shipping Agency v. NLRC,
200 SCRA 178,185; R.P. Dinglasan Construction, Inc. v. Atienza, 433
SCRA 263, 269; and, Sy v. Court of Appeals, 446 Phil. 404, 413 (2003).
Thus:
It is a basic rule of evidence that each
party must prove his affirmative allegation. If he
claims a right granted by law, he must prove his
claim by competent evidence, relying on the
strength of his own evidence and not upon the
weakness of that of his opponent.
The test for determining on whom the
burden of proof lies is found in the result of an
inquiry as to which party would be successful if
no evidence of such matters were given.
In an illegal dismissal case, the onus
probandi rests on the employer to prove that its
dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause.
However, before a case for illegal dismissal can
prosper,
an
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
relationship must FIRST be established.
In filing a complaint before the Labor
Arbiter for illegal dismissal based on the
premise that she was an employee of
respondent, it is INCUMBENT upon petitioner
to PROVE the employee-employer relationship
by SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. (Emphasis
ours)
Thus, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-mentioned
cases, it is incumbent upon the complainant to prove that an employee4

employer relationship exist between him and the respondents by

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
In labor cases, the quantum of proof necessary is SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE, or such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Complainants
have the DUTY to prove by substantial evidence their own positive
assertions. (Antiquina vs. Magsaysay; G.R. No. 168922, April 13, 2011)
Accordingly, ABSENT any evidence that he is an employee of
respondent ZANDER, this case should be resolved in favor of the
respondents.
It was enough for the defendant to deny the
alleged employment relationship, without more,
for he was not under obligation to prove this
negative averment. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit,
non qui negat. This Court has consistently applied
the ancient rule that "if the plaintiff, upon whom
rests the burden of proving his cause of action,
fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts
upon which he bases his claim, the defendant is
under no obligation to prove his exception or
defense." (ERNESTO MARTIN vs. CA; G.R. No.
82248, January 30, 1992)
THERE BEING NO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP ,
complainant is therefore not entitled to any of the monetary claims as
stated in the complaint.
In closing, the High Court has emphasized that the constitutional
policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be a sword to
oppress employers. The commitment of this Court to the cause of labor
does not prevent us from sustaining the employer when it is in the right.
We should always be mindful that justice is in every case for the
deserving, to be dispensed with in the light of established facts, the
applicable law, and existing jurisprudence. (MAGSAYSAY MARITIME
CORPORATION vs. NLRC; G.R. No. 186180, March 22, 2010)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed
that instant complaint be dismissed.
Quezon City, February 20, 2013.

ATTY. PEARLITO B. CAMPANILLA

Suite B 2nd Floor Overland Park Bldg.,
No. 245 Banawe St. cor. Quezon Ave., Q.C
PTR 772308 01-18-13 QC
IBP Life 010564 2-3-12 Pasig City
Roll No. 37522
MCLE Compliance No. III - 0015235

Copy Furnished:
ARTURO J. ARNOCO
6295 CF Natividad St., Mapulang Lupa, Valenzuela