Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment


NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Quezon City

Rodel Case No. 1234 Illegal Dismissal

Complainant.

-versus-

Raquel

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

POSITION PAPER

COMPLAINANT by the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable


Labor Arbitration Office, most respectfully submits this position paper and
avers the following to wit:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

The Complainant in this case is Rodel, of legal age, married, with


post office at ., where he could be served with summons and other legal
processes.

The Respondent in this case is Racquel, of legal age, married, with


post office at ., where he could be served with summons and other legal
processes.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Complainant was hired by Racquel to make repairs on her


leaking roof. The latter handed P10,000 ten thousand pesos to the
Complainant for the purpose of buying the necessary materials for the
repairs. While the latter was on vacation, the complainant proceeded with
the buying of the said materials. However, prior to making the repairs,
Racquel called the complainant through a cellular phone and shouted you
are fired and you have to return the rest of the money, if not, I will file a
complaint against you.

1. Rodel should be considered project employee

ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employees. The provision of


written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and
regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment
shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been
engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except
where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or
undertaking the completion or termination of which has been
determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or
where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in
nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not


covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any
employee who has rendered at least one year of service,
whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be
considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in
which he is employed and his employment shall continue while
such actually exists.

The foregoing provision provides for three kinds of employees:


(a) regular employees or those who have been engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or
trade of the employer; (b) project employees or those whose employment
has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or
termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of
the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in
nature and the employment is for the duration of the season; and
(c) casual employees or those who are neither regular nor
project employees. (Caceres v. Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation
Sept 28 2007)
Nitto Enterprises vs NLRC [G.R. No. L-114337. September 29, 1995.], to
wit:

There is an abundance of cases wherein the Court ruled that the twin
requirements of due process, substantive and procedural, must be
complied with, before valid dismissal exists. Without which, the dismissal
becomes void. The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the
essential elements of due process. This simply means that the employer
shall afford the worker ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself
with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires. Ample
opportunity connotes every kind of assistance that management must
accord the employee to enable him to prepare adequately for his defense
including legal representation.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered Complainants hereby prays that:

1. His dismissal be declared illegal;


2. Respondent be declared to reinstate the complainant for the
completion of the project;
3. Moral damages of 50,000 for the unwarranted dismissal and
another 50,000 for Exemplary Damages to serve as deterrent for
committing similar acts, plus Attorneys fees of ten percent (10%)
of the total award.

Other reliefs just and equitable are being prayed for under the
circumstances.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

December 13, 2016 in Quezon City.

Atty. Emer Ley Ayesa Y. Ortega


Counsel for the Complainant
Adress: Caloocan City
PTR No. 350305; 1/12/16; B.C.
IBP No. 0912430; 1/12/18; B.C.
MCLE No. 23459
Attorneys Roll No. 70304
Mobile No. 09227215005

COPY FURNISHED:
Republic of the Philippines
Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Quezon City

Jose

Complainant Case: Illegal Dismissal

-versus-

Makunat Corporation

-Respondent-

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Respondent, hereby files this Motion for Reconsideration from the


Decision of ____ of the National Labor Relations Commission denying the
motion to reduce bond filed by the Respondent, a copy of which was
received on ____ by Respondent through counsel, and respectfully avers
THAT :

THE RESOLUTION SUBJECT OF RECONSIDERATION

The Honorable _____ of the National Labor Relations Commission


promulgated a Decision on ___, the decretal portion which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of the respondent


is hereby DISMISSED for non-perfection due to want of an appeal bond.

1. In Garcia vs KJ Commercial, February 29, 2012, The Rules of


Procedure of the NLRC allows the filing of a motion to reduce bond
subject to two conditions: (1) there is meritorious ground, and (2) a
bond in a reasonable amount is posted. Section 6 of Article VI states:
a. No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on
meritorious grounds upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable
amount in relation to the monetary award.

b. The mere filing of the motion to reduce bond without compliance


with the requisites in the preceding paragraph shall not stop the
running of the period to perfect an appeal.

2. The filing of a motion to reduce bond and compliance with the two
conditions stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.
In McBurnie v. Ganzon, the Court held:

x x x [T]he bond may be reduced upon motion by the employer, this is


subject to the conditions that (1) the motion to reduce the bond shall
be based on meritorious grounds; and (2) a reasonable amount in
relation to the monetary award is posted by the appellant, otherwise
the filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of
the period to perfect an appeal.

3. That the monetary award is too harsh as the Respondent Corporation


is in the verge of closing down and its assets are already in the
process of being scuffled, as such, will not be able to raise the
amount.

4. In any case, the rule that the filing of a motion to reduce bond shall
not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal is not absolute.
The Court may relax the rule. In Intertranz Container Lines, Inc. v.
Bautista, the Court held:

Jurisprudence tells us that in labor cases, an appeal from a decision


involving a monetary award may be perfected only upon the posting
of a cash or surety bond. The Court, however, has relaxed this
requirement under certain exceptional circumstances in order to
resolve controversies on their merits. These circumstances include:
(1) fundamental consideration of substantial justice; (2) prevention of
miscarriage of justice or of unjust enrichment; and (3) special
circumstances of the case combined with its legal merits, and the
amount and the issue involved.

RELIEF

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, It is respectfully prayed that the


Decision denying the Motion to reduce bond be reconsidered thereby
granting the Repondents Motion for Reconsideration.

All other reliefs, just and equitable, under the premises are likewise prayed
for.

Quezon City, December 13, 2016

Makunat Corporation

Respondent-Movant
Republic of the Philippines
Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Quezon City

Jose

Complainant Case: Illegal Dismissal

-versus-

Makunat Corporation

-Respondent-

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MOTION TO QUASH WRIT OF EXECUTION

Respondent, hereby files this Motion to Quash Writ of Execution ordered


by____ of the National Labor Relations Commission, a copy of which was
received on ____ by Respondent through counsel, and respectfully avers
THAT :

THE ORDER SUBJECT OF MOTION

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for


execution is hereby granted. Consequently, Makunat
Corporation is ordered to pay Jose the amount of P500,000 as
backwages, P50,000 for 13th month pay, P30,000 SIL 3,
P20,000 holiday pay, and P10,000 as attorneys fees.
Republic of the Philippines
Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Quezon City

Jose

Complainant Case: Illegal Dismissal

-versus-

Makunat Corporation

-Respondent-

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MOTION TO SUSPEND ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT

Respondent, hereby files this Motion to suspend order of reinstatement


ordered by____ of the National Labor Relations Commission, a copy of
which was received on ____ by Respondent through counsel, and
respectfully avers THAT :

THE ORDER SUBJECT OF MOTION

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for


execution is hereby granted. Consequently, Makunat
Corporation is ordered to pay Jose the amount of P500,000 as
backwages, P50,000 for 13th month pay, P30,000 SIL 3,
P20,000 holiday pay, and P10,000 as attorneys fees.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS

3rd Division

Manila

Makunat Corporation

Petitioner Case: Illegal Dismissal

-versus-

NLRC

-Respondent-

Jose

(Private Respondent)

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

COMES NOW, petitioner XYZ Corporation duly represented by Atty. Ralph


Jarvis Alindog and through the undersigned counsel in the above-entitled
case, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states and alleges:

NATURE OF THE PETITION

1. This is a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of


Civil Procedure assailing the resolution of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC for brevity) Second Division dated
____ pertaining to the denied Motion for Reconsideration of its previous
decision

1. That petitioner was able to timely file the Motion for Reconsideration
of such resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission.
Unfortunately, the NLRC denied said motion on its resolution
dated____ ;
2. That petitioner is now assailing the propriety of the NLRC decision
in dismissing the motion and hereby raise pure questions of law,
considering that there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy
available in the ordinary course of law- hence, this petition;

TIMELINESS OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION

1. That petitioner through its president had received via his secretary
the assailed NLRC decision denying the motion for reconsideration on
________. This petition is timely filed because it is still within the
timeframe allowed by law

THE PARTIES

1. That petitioner is a corporation duly organized and registered under


the laws of the Philippines, represented by its President, ___________,of
legal age, Filipino, single, with an office address at
____________________,where he may be served the summons and other
processes of this Honorable Court.

2. That respondent NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION


(NLRC) is a quasi-judicial body tasked to promote and maintain industrial
peace by resolving labor and management disputes involving both local
and overseas workers through compulsory arbitration and alternative
modes of dispute resolution. It is attached to the Department of Labor and
Employment for program and policy coordination with duties and
responsibilities pursuant to law duly represented by its CHAIRMAN
_____________,of legal age, Filipino with postal address at NLRC
OFFICE, Quezon City, where he may be served the summons and other
processes of this Honorable Court.
V. STATEMENT OF MATTERS AND FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE

1. The Petitioner suffered financial losses during the last 3 years.


Inevitably, the Petitioner has to relieve several employees. One of which is
Defendant Jose.

2. Jose filed a complaint for illegal dismissal to the Labor Arbiter. He


alleged that he was not afforded due process because he was not given
any notice in violation of the two-notice rule by the Labor Code and
management should pay him amount equivalent to the number of years
that he worked for the company which is 20 years;

3. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the Jose. The dispositive portion of
which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of Jose. Makunat Corporation


is hereby ordered to reinstate Jose with full backwages. Costs ordered
against the respondent Makunat Corporaton.

DISCUSSION

1. The NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor


Arbiters Decision ruling that Jose was illegally dismissed the truth
being that Makunat Corporation is suffering from losses.
2. As such, the dismissal of Jose was without fault" on the employers
part.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered Complainants hereby prays that:

1. NLRC decision be set aside;


2. A Temporary Restraining Order be issued to stay the Execution of
LAs Order;
3. Moral damages of 50,000 for the unwarranted dismissal and
another 50,000 for Exemplary Damages to serve as deterrent for
committing similar acts, plus Attorneys fees of ten percent (10%)
of the total award.
Other reliefs just and equitable are being prayed for under the
circumstances.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

December 13, 2016 in Quezon City