Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
COMPLAINT
PREFATORY STATEMENTS
THE PARTIES
1
Fuentes, et al. v. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 110017, January 2, 1997
Page 1
Philippines, and it may be served with summons, notices and other processes
at Level 66 6 Ecom Center MOA Complex, Pasay City, NCR 1850.
5. True enough, after two months since complainant received her Notice to
Explain (NTE), respondent company rendered a decision exonerating the
complainant on all charges except unauthorized downloading of app such
as viber and GTA. Complainant was meted out with a penalty of FINAL
WARNING, admonishing her from committing the same infraction again,
otherwise she will be terminated from service. A copy of the Decision
hereto attached as ANNEX “D”.
6. Thinking complainant was already out in the clear, she was surprised to
receive another Notice to Explain (NTE) for the alleged unauthorized
Page 2
insertion of a USB in her laptop with a concomitant penalty of termination.
On top of this new charge, the HR uploaded the results of the investigation
in their computer system which can be viewed by the other operations
managers, to make things worse, the newly uploaded records of herein
complainant did not reflect her exoneration from the charges.
ISSUES
I. COMPLAINANT WAS
ILLEGALLY DISMISSED AS HER
EMPLOYMENT WAS
TERMINATED WITHOUT JUST
AND AUTHORIZED CAUSE
Page 3
Well-established is the rule that regular employees
enjoy security of tenure and they can only be dismissed for
just or valid cause and upon compliance with due process,
i.e., after notice and hearing. In cases involving an
employee’s dismissal, the burden is on the employer to
prove that the dismissal was legal.2
I.A.2. In support of this position, Article 280 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines explicitly determines who, by law, are considered as regular
employees, to wit:
2
Judy O. Dacuital,et. al. v. L.M. Camus Engineering Corporation And/Or Luis M. Camus,
G.R. No. 176748, September 1, 2010
3
Peckson v. Robinsons Supermarket Corporation, G.R. No. 198534, July 3, 2013, 700
SCRA 668, 681, citing Blue Dairy Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,
373 Phil. 179, 186 (1999).
Page 4
employees, the workers, on the other hand, are enjoying the fullest protection
of the Constitution, the Labor Code and well-settled labor jurisprudence,
especially on their fundamental right to security of tenure. That is why
whenever management subjects an employee to harassment, intimidation,
coercion or subjects him to grave insult and ridicule, pushing the worker to
resignation, that is, a clear a case of illegal constructive dismissal.
I.B.5. In a case4 decided by the Supreme Court on March 1, 2017, the highest
court of the land enunciated once again the need to respect the employees’
right to security of tenure. The Supreme Court held that the immediate filing
of a complaint for illegal dismissal would be the best evidence that
contradicts what employers allege as voluntary resignation.
4
Flordaliza Grande vs Philippine Nautical Training College ,GR 213137 ,March 1 2017
Page 5
other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed
from the time his compensation was withheld from him
up to the time of his actual reinstatement. (As amended
by Section 34, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
II.3. In view of the strained relations between respondent company and the
Complainant, reinstatement is no longer practical. Hence, in lieu thereof, the
Complainant should be entitled to her separation pay.
II.5. Stated otherwise, backwages are granted for earnings a worker has lost
due to his illegal dismissal. An employer is obliged to pay an illegally
dismissed employee the whole amount of salaries plus all other benefits and
5
G.R. No. 188711, July 8, 2013
6
Buhain v. Court of Appeals, 383 SCRA 602
Page 6
bonus and general increases to which the latter would have been normally
entitled had he not been dismissed.7
II.6. Thus, Complainant is entitled to all her salaries from the day she was
illegally terminated up to the resolution of this case.
III.1. For Respondent’s utter disregard in bad faith of the standards set by
labor code, particularly the observance of the process in terminating the
employment of herein complainant, respondent should be made to pay
NOMINAL DAMAGES.
III.3. Also, to deter other employers from future violations of the statutory due
process emanating from the rights of employees and, at the very least, provide
for vindication or recognition of this fundamental right granted to the latter
under the Labor Code and its Implementing rules, Complainant must also be
awarded with EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.
III.4. Finally, in view of the reckless and wanton attitude of the Respondent
in illegally terminating the employment of Complainant, the latter was
constrained to seek the assistance of a counsel to bring the present action and
pay other expenses. Thus, Respondent/s should be made to pay Attorney’s
fees in the amount judiciously determined as reasonable by the Honorable
Arbiter.
III.5. Settled is the rule that when the conflicting interest of loan and capital
are weighed on the scales of social justice, the heavier influence of the latter
must be counter-balanced by the sympathy and compassion the law must
accord the under-privileged worker.8 Thus, the case at bar must necessarily
prosper.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully
prayed from this Honorable Office that judgment be rendered:
7
St. Louis College of Tuguegarao v. NLRC, 177 SCRA 157 [1989]
8
Manaya v. Alabang Country Club Incorporated, G. R. No. 168988, 19 June 2007.
Page 7
1. DECLARING Complainant to have been illegally dismissed by the
Respondent;
2. ORDERING Respondent to jointly and solidarily PAY:
a. Separation pay, and full backwages.
b. Nominal, Moral and Exemplary Damage; and
c. Attorney’s Fees
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.
By:
MA. FLORENCE R. FUERTE
Contact No.: 09155441851/413-0000
IBP No. 457133/1-3-2014/Manila
PTR No. 32414131/1-3-2014/Manila
MCLE Complaince No. V-0012345
Roll No. 12345
I, the undersigned affiant, of legal age, after being duly sworn, depose
and say:
Page 8
7. That I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court
of Appeals, or any other tribunal or quasi-judicial agency in this
jurisdiction;
8. That to the best of my own knowledge, no such action or proceeding is
pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency in this jurisdiction;
9. That if I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or quasi-judicial agency in this
jurisdiction, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to this Honorable Labor Arbiter.
Notary Public
Copy Furnished:
CUSTOMER CARE MANAGEMENT INC.
Level 66 Six E Com Center, Block 18
Pacific Drive Extension, Pasay City
Page 9