Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. III
City of San Fernando, Pampanga

JEFFERSON T. RONIDEL,
ROLANDO D. FULGENCIO,
Complainants-Appellants,
NLRC-RAB-III-02-27015-18
- VERSUS - HON. MARIANNE HAZEL P. MORALES-FABRO
Labor Arbiter
GOLDSTAR REALTY AND
DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET. AL.,
Respondents-Appellees.
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
JEFFERSON T. RONIDEL and ROLANDO D. FULGENCIO
(collectively as “Complainants-Appellants”), by themselves, and unto
this Honorable Office respectfully aver the following:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

It is trite to say that labor will never be in equal footing with capital.
In illegal termination cases, such as the instant case, management is
possessed with limitless resources at its disposal to ensure that the
action it has taken against an employee is an air-tight case backed up
by evidences. Every inch of the way, management is guided by its
battery of retained legal counsels: from the inception of the decision to
do away with an employee; to proving its case before the labor arbiter,
all the way up to the Supreme Court.

In addition to the guidance of a person expertly trained in legal

skirmishes, management has in its absolute control, the production and
suppression of documents as well as access to and influence over
employees whom management believes will take their side in justifying
that its action against a hapless working man will have a semblance of
legality.

At the other extreme and in absolute unfortunate state is the

hapless working man who has no resources to match those which are
possessed by management. Painfully, he will only know the

Memorandum of Appeal Page 1 of 9

indispensability of evidence to prove that his property right was
trampled upon by management at the moment he is already out of
employment and both him and his family suffering from the untold
hardships created by oppressive action of management. Constrained
to seek the assistance of a legal counsel usually services rendered pro
bono, he will have his first dose of remedial law education that bare
assertions, no matter how truthful it is, do not have any evidentiary
weight and will never be given credence by any labor arbiter, the NLRC,
Court of Appeals, nor the Supreme Court.

JURISDICTIONAL FACTS

1] On 7 March 2019, Complainant-Appellant Jefferson T.

Ronidel (“Ronidel”) received a copy of the Decision of Hon. Labor
Arbiter Marianne Hazel P. Morales-Fabro (hereafter referred as Hon.
L.A. Morales-Fabro) in NLRC Case No. RAB-III-02-27015-18 entitled
Jefferson T. Ronidel and Rolando D. Fulgencio (Complainants) vs.
Goldstar Realty and Development Corp., Et. Al. (Respondents).

2] On 8 March 2019, Complainant-Appellant Rolando D.

Fulgencio (“Fulgencio”) received a copy of the Decision of Hon. Labor
Arbiter Marianne Hazel P. Morales-Fabro (hereafter referred as Hon.
L.A. Morales-Fabro) in NLRC Case No. RAB-III-02-27015-18 entitled
Jefferson T. Ronidel and Rolando D. Fulgencio (Complainants) vs.
Goldstar Realty and Development Corp., Et. Al. (Respondents).

3] Thus, Ronidel and Fulgencio has until 18 March 2019 within

which to file this Memorandum of Appeal inasmuch as 16 and 17 March
2019 are both non-working days being Saturday and Sunday,
respectively.

4] Ronidel and Fulgencio respectfully appeal the Decision of

Hon. L.A. Morales-Fabro to this Honorable Office and submit this
Memorandum of Appeal.

5] The dispositive portion of Hon. L.A. Morales-Fabro Decision

promulgated on 28 February 2019 reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is

hereby rendered DISMISSING the instant complaint for
illegal dismissal for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Memorandum of Appeal Page 2 of 9

 City of San Fernando, Pampanga, February 11,
2019.”

6] Hon. L.A. Morales-Fabro committed grave abuse of discretion

in rendering the above Decision (hereafter referred to as “assailed
Decision”) and committed serious errors in the findings of facts which,
if not corrected, would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to
Ronidel and Fulgencio as discussed in the Assignment of Errors and
Discussions below:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

SERIOUS ERROR IN THE FINDINGS OF FACTS THAT RONIDEL

AND FULGENCIO WERE NOT ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM
EMPLOYMENT

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT RONIDEL

AND FULGENCIO WERE NOT ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM
EMPLOYMENT

DISCUSSIONS

1st ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FINDING
THAT THE TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT
OF APPELLANTS RONIDEL AND FULGENCIO
WAS VALID AND LEGAL

7] In Gonzales vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 125735, 26 August 1999),

the Supreme Court emphatically described the nature of employment
in the following wise:

“Employment is not merely a contractual relationship; it

has assumed the nature of property right. It may spell the
difference whether or not a family will have food on their
table, roof over their heads and education for their children.
It is for this reason that the State has taken up measures to
protect employees from unjustified dismissals. It is also
because of this that the right to security of tenure is not
only a statutory right but, more so, a constitutional right.”

8] Further, in Montinola vs. Philippine Airlines (G.R. No. 198656,

8 September 2014, the Supreme Court underscored that the right to
security of tenure is a constitutional right of an employee, to wit:

Memorandum of Appeal Page 3 of 9

 “The constitutional protection for workers elevates their
work to the status of a vested right. It is a vested right
protected not only against state action but against the
arbitrary acts of the employers as well. This court in
Philippine Movie Pictures Workers’ Association v. Premier
Productions, Inc. (Premiere Productions vs. Philippine
Movie Pictures Workers’ Association [G.R. No. L-7338,
31May1955]) categorically stated that "[t]he right of a
person to his labor is deemed to be property within the
meaning of constitutional guarantees." Moreover, it is of
that species of vested constitutional right that also affects
an employee’s liberty and quality of life. Work not only
contributes to defining the individual, it also assists in
determining one’s purpose. Work provides for the material
basis of human dignity.”

9] More in point, the Supreme Court in Peñaflor vs. Outdoor

Clothing Manufacturing Corp. (G.R. No. 177114, 21 January 2010)
held that:

“Another basic principle is that expressed in Article 4 of the

Labor Code – that all doubts in the interpretation and
implementation of the Labor Code should be interpreted in
favor of the workingman. This principle has been extended
by jurisprudence to cover doubts in the evidence presented
by the employer and the employee.”

10] In the light of the constitutional protection afforded to

workers, the case of King of Kings Transport, Inc. vs. Mamac (G.R.
No. 166208, 29 June 2007) made a concise discussion on the
standards of due process in termination of employment relations.
Pertinent portion of the decision reads as follows:

“To clarify, the following should be considered in

terminating the services of employees:

(1) The first written notice to be served on the employees

should contain the specific causes or grounds for
termination against them, and a directive that the
employees are given the opportunity to submit their
written explanation within a reasonable period.
"Reasonable opportunity" under the Omnibus Rules
means every kind of assistance that management must
accord to the employees to enable them to prepare
adequately for their defense. This should be construed as
a period of at least five (5) calendar days from receipt of
the notice to give the employees an opportunity to study
the accusation against them, consult a union official or
lawyer, gather data and evidence, and decide on the
defenses they will raise against the complaint. Moreover,
in order to enable the employees to intelligently prepare
their explanation and defenses, the notice should contain
a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that

Memorandum of Appeal Page 4 of 9

 will serve as basis for the charge against the employees.
A general description of the charge will not suffice. Lastly,
the notice should specifically mention which company
rules, if any, are violated and/or which among the grounds
under Art. 282 is being charged against the employees.

(2) After serving the first notice, the employers should

schedule and conduct a hearing or conference wherein the
employees will be given the opportunity to: (1) explain and
clarify their defenses to the charge against them; (2)
present evidence in support of their defenses; and (3)
rebut the evidence presented against them by the
management. During the hearing or conference, the
employees are given the chance to defend themselves
personally, with the assistance of a representative or
counsel of their choice. Moreover, this conference or
hearing could be used by the parties as an opportunity to
come to an amicable settlement.

(3) After determining that termination of employment is

justified, the employers shall serve the employees a
written notice of termination indicating that: (1) all
circumstances involving the charge against the
employees have been considered; and (2) grounds have
been established to justify the severance of their
employment.”

11] In the above captioned case, the following are violative of

Ronidel’s and Fulgencio’s right to procedural due process:

11.1] Respondents-Appellees’ Notice to Explain was vague

and does not specifically mention which company rules, if
any, were violated and/or which among the grounds under
Art. 296 [282] is being charged against them. The notice
merely states as follows:

“Please explain within 120 hours why you

should not be charged administratively for the
following offenses:

1. Commission of an act amounting to grave

abuse of status or discretion

 Construction of Macapinlac Residence –

Bocaue, Bulacan
 Construction of Marilou Gaspar
Residences – Malolos, Bulacan

2. Using company time to do unauthorized

work outside the premises for personal gain
(Tierra Benita Project)

Memorandum of Appeal Page 5 of 9

 3. Unauthorized collection of money from
Contractor Reyes.

For your compliance.”

11.2] Respondents-Appellees’ Notice of Hearing miserably

failed to inform Ronidel and Fulgencio of their right to be
accompanied by legal counsel or any person of their choice
during the administrative hearing. The notice merely states
as follows:

“This is to inform you that you are required to

attend the hearing regarding your case on
January 3, 2018 at 1:00 in the afternoon to be
held at unit 905 tycoon centre pearl drive
ortigas center pasig city.

Other parties concerned like Renato Reyes,

Gina Barron and four (4) other construction
workers of said contractor are invited to
represent their side.

We hope to hear you for your confrontation.”

Highly unusual that the administrative hearing was

scheduled by Respondents-Appellees on a date (3
January 2018) whereby Ronidel and Fulgencio are
prohibited from entering the company premises being
on preventive suspension.

11.3] Respondents-Appellees’ Notice of Termination of

Employment was couched in general terms, as follows:

“Based on the result of the investigation, you

have committed acts in the performance of
your duty specifically using company time and
company vehicle to do unauthorized work
outside of the premises for personal gain.
Company policy provides that first offense
against performance of duty (Class 5) is
subject to dismissal.

Your service with the company is hereby

terminated effective January 12, 2018.”

It bears stressing that there is not an iota of evidence

presented by Respondents-Appellees that Ronidel
and Fulgencio -

Memorandum of Appeal Page 6 of 9

 A] were provided with their respective copy of
Respondents-Appellees Manual of Company Policy;

B] neither Ronidel and Fulgencio underwent

orientation on the contents of Respondents-Appellees
Manual of Company Policy when they were hired.

12] Relevantly, in Quebral vs. Angbus (G.R. No. 221897, 7

November 2016), the Supreme Court defined grave abuse of discretion
as follows:

“Grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised

in a capricious and whimsical manner that is tantamount
to lack of jurisdiction.”

13] In the light of the foregoing discussions on the manner

Ronidel and Fulgencio were terminated from their employment by
Respondents-Appellees effective 12 January 2018 and guided by the
jurisprudential principles cited above, it is indisputable that Hon. L.A.
Morales-Fabro gravely abused her discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in finding that the termination of employment of
Ronidel and Fulgencio was valid and legal.

14] Indeed, Hon. L.A. Morales-Fabro acted whimsically and

capriciously when she ignored the explicit mandates of the Labor Code
and its Implementing Rules and Regulations as well as the aforecited
jurisprudential principles laid down by the Supreme Court on the clear
standards to be strictly complied with by employers in the termination
of employment base on any of the grounds provided for under Art. 296
[282] of the Labor Code.

2nd ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

SERIOUS ERROR IN THE FINDINGS OF FACTS THAT
RONIDEL AND FULGENCIO WERE NOT ILLEGALLY
DISMISSED FROM EMPLOYMENT

15] It bears emphasis that Ms. Emily Tan has no authorization

from the Board of Directors of Respondent-Appellee corporation to
sign their position paper, reply, and rejoinder as evidenced by the fact
that no secretary’s certificate authorizing her to sign for and in behalf
of Respondent-Appellee corporation the aforesaid pleadings was ever
provided or even attached to the records of the instant case.

16] Additionally, the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum

Shopping signed by Ms. Emily Tan and attached to their position paper
is not notarized.
Memorandum of Appeal Page 7 of 9
 17] Given the aforestated fatal flaws mentioned in paragraphs
15 and 16, Respondents-Appellees’ position paper, reply, and
rejoinder are deemed unsigned. These are but mere scrap of papers
that not a single fact could be drawn to arrive at a conclusion that
Ronidel and Fulgencio were legally and validly terminated from
employment.

18] Finally, attached hereto are the following:

18.1] Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping

(Annex “A”); and

18.2] Affidavit of Service (Annex “B”)

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby respectfully

prayed that the Decision of Honorable Labor Arbiter Marianne Hazel P.
Morales - Fabro be reversed and set aside and a new one be issued,
as follows:

1] Declaring that Jefferson T. Ronidel and Rolando D. Fulgencio

were illegally dismissed by Goldstar Realty and Development Corp., et.
al.

2] Ordering Goldstar Realty and Development Corp., et. al. to

jointly and severally pay Jefferson T. Ronidel and Rolando D. Fulgencio
the following:

2.1] Full back wages, inclusive of allowances and other

benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time
they were illegally dismissed on 12 January 2018 up to the
time of the final resolution of the above-captioned case.

2.2] Separation pay amounting to one month pay for every

year of service starting on the date they were hired up to the
final resolution of the above-captioned case. Dates of hired as
follows:

2.2.1] Jefferson T. Ronidel was hired on Sept. 16, 2016

2.2.2] Rolando D. Fulgencio was hired on Feb. 16, 2008

2.3] Php50,000 representing moral damages.

2.4] Php50,000 representing nominal damages.

Memorandum of Appeal Page 8 of 9

 2.5] Php50,000 representing exemplary damages.

Finally, Jefferson T. Ronidel and Rolando D. Fulgencio

respectfully pray for such other reliefs as may be deemed just and
equitable under the premises.

Marilao, Bulacan for City of San Fernando, Pampanga, 18

March, 2019.

Respectfully submitted,

JEFFERSON T. RONIDEL
Complainant-Appellant

ROLANDO D. FULGENCIO
Complainant-Appellant

Copy furnished:

ATTY. WILFREDO B. AVILA RR NO. ___________________________

4-C Magalang Street, MAILED AT: Bocaue, Bulacan
MAILED ON: 18 March 2019
Diliman 1100 Quezon City

WRITTEN EXPLANATION

Service of this MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL to the counsel-of-

record for the Respondents-Appellees - Atty. Wilfredo B. Avila, was not
done personally but through registered mail due to distance and lack
of manpower to effect personal service.

JEFFERSON T. RONIDEL ROLANDO D. FULGENCIO

Complainant-Appellant Complainant-Appellant

Memorandum of Appeal Page 9 of 9