Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. 1
City of San Fernando, La Union

JOHNY MABITAZAN,
JEFFREY SANTOS, &
TEDDY BOADILLA
Complainants,
-versus-
NLRC Case No. RAB – I
10-1180-19 (LU-2)

ERNESTO S. DELA CRUZ

Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER

COMPLAINANTS and unto this Honorable Labor Arbitration Office,

most respectfully submits this position paper and avers the following to
wit:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

The Complainants in this case are;

JEFFREY SANTOS (Mr. Santos for brevity), of legal age,

married, with address at Brgy. Consolacion, Agoo, La Union where he
could be served with summons and other legal processes of this
Honorable Office;

TEDDY BOADILLA (Mr. Boadilla for brevity), of legal age,

single, with address at Brgy. San Jose Norte, Agoo, La Union where
he could be served with summons and other legal processes of this
Honorable Office; and

JOHNY MABITAZAN (Mr. Mabitazan for brevity), of legal

age, single, with address at Brgy. Sta Rita, Agoo, La Union where he
could be served with summons and other legal processes of this
Honorable Office.

1
 The Respondent is SCHOOLMATE ADS AND PRINT SOLUTION, a
business establishment owned and managed by Mr. ERNESTO S. DELA
CRUZ, with business address at Brgy. Consolacion, Agoo, La Union, where
the said establishment and representative could be served with summons
and other legal processes of this Honorable Office.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Complainants were formerly regular employees as Machine
Operator, Graphic Artist, and Signage Installer of Respondent’s
establishment since CY 2013 for both, Mr. Mabitazan and Mr. Boadilla and
CY 2015 for Mr. Santos. The business undertaking of the said Respondent
is to print and fabricate signage, tarpaulin, t-shirt printing, and other
printing works which Complainants prepare in the premises of the business
establishment of the Respondent.
The Complainants worked for six (6) days a week. They worked for
10 hours per day from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM with no overtime pay. They
were also made to work on holidays without holiday/premium pay, with the
exception of the following holidays for which there was no work, to wit:
Christmas day and New Year’s Day.
The starting salary of Complainant (Mr. Boadilla) was Php150.00
per day way back of the year 2013. In the year 2014, this was increased
to Php180.00 per day. Then, in 2015, his daily wage was increased to
Php200.00. In the year 2016, his daily wage was increased to Php 210.00
and in the year 2017, his daily wage was again increased to Php 230.00.
In the mid-year of 2019, his daily wage was again increased to Php 273.00
until he was illegally terminated on September 23, 2019. All of the
aforementioned daily wage rates are below the prevailing minimum wage
mandated by law and given effect by the various applicable Wage Orders
issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board – Region I.
On the part of (Mr. Santos), his starting salary was Php 150.00 per
day for CY 2015. In the year 2016, this was increased to Php 180.00 per
day. Then, in 2017, his daily wage was increased to Php 260.00. In the
year 2018, his daily wage was increased to Php 280.00 until he was
illegally terminated on September 23, 2019. All of the aforementioned
daily wage rates are below the prevailing minimum wage mandated by law
and given effect by the various applicable Wage Orders issued by the
Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board – Region 1.

2
 Likewise, on the part of (Mr. Mabitazan) his starting salary was Php
150.00 per day. In the year 2014, this was increased to Php 180.00 per
day. Then, in 2015, his daily wage was increased to Php 200.00. In the
year 2016, his daily wage was increased to Php 210.00 and in the year
2017, his daily wage was again increased to Php 230.00. In the mid-year
2019, his daily wage was again increased to Php 273.00 until he was
illegally terminated on September 23, 2019. All of the aforementioned
daily wage rates are below the prevailing minimum wage mandated by law
and given effect by the various applicable Wage Orders issued by the
Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board – Region 1.
The Complainants were not given their 13 th month pay since they
become employees of the said establishment.
In support of the foregoing allegations is a Summary of Employees
Record of Wages recorded and consolidated by the herein Complainants
which is attached and made integral part of this Position Paper as Annex
“A”
Likewise, Complainants were not given the yearly service incentive
leave of five (5) days with pay in accordance to Article 95 of the Labor
Code.
Sometime on the second week of June 2019, Complainants went to
the office of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Region 1 to
report these unfair labor practices made by the Respondent.
In response to the report being made by the herein Respondents, on
July 2, 2019, Mr. ALLAN JEROME O. PADILLA, Labor Inspector from the
Department of Labor and Employment, Region 1 conducted an inspection
at the work premises and office of the herein Respondent. The Labor
Inspector made a several findings that the establishment of the
Respondent violated some Labor Standards such as underpayment of
wages and 13th month pay, non-payment of Special Holiday premium pay
and non-coverage of SSS, PhilHealth, and PAG-IBIG. (A copy of the Report
is hereto attached and made integral part of this Position Paper as Annex
“B”
On September 13, 2019, as an offshoot of the report being made by
the Complainants on the unfair labor practice of the Respondent, the latter
made a letter addressed to the Complainant regarding on the alleged
missing of 10939.31 square feet or 6.352679 rolls of tarpaulin.
On September 15, 2019, the Complainants replied the letter of the
Respondent on the alleged missing of 10939.31 square feet or 6.352679

3
rolls of tarpaulin. On the part of the Complainants, they averred that they
cannot be blamed on the alleged missing rolls of tarpaulin because these
rolls of tarpaulin was sometimes used in some instances at the shop of the
Respondent located at Rosario, La Union. Further, they averred that
Respondent only audited the stocks of the Agoo Branch which is not
conclusive because all of the stocks were also used in other branches of
his establishment like in Rosario, La Union branch. Hence, Respondent
cannot substantiate his allegation on the alleged missing of rolls of
tarpaulin.
On September 21, 2019, Respondent tendered to the Complainants
a letter containing that effective September 23, 2019, they were
provisionally dismissed from their employment without any valid or
authorized cause/s or grounds.
That as a result of the unjust termination of employment of the
Complainants by the Respondent, the former suffered mental anguish,
sleepless nights, wounded feelings, serious anxiety, moral shock, and
social humiliation, especially concerning the daily sustenance of his family.

ISSUES
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANTS WERE ILLEGALLY
DISMISSED AND WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANTS WERE
AFFORDED THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.

2. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SERVICE

INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY, HOLIDAY PAY, REST DAY PAY AND
OVERTIME PAY.

3. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANTS WERE UNDERPAID.

4. WHETHER OR NOT, THE RESPONDENT IS LIABLE TO THE

COMPLAINANT FOR NOMINAL DAMAGES AND MORAL DAMAGES.

FIRST ISSUE: (ILLEGAL

DISMISSAL AND NO
PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS)

4
 As regular employees who have worked for the respondent and
whose duties are necessary and desirable for the respondent’s business,
the complainant has a right to security of tenure. This right is guaranteed
by the Constitution as well as the Labor Code;

The Labor Code provides that an employee may only be terminated

from service by the employer for just and authorized causes. To wit:

ART. 296. TERMINATION BY EMPLOYER

An employer may terminate an employee for any of the following

causes:

(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of

the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection
with her work;

(b) Gross habitual neglect by the employee of her duties;

(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in

him by her employer or duly authorized representative;

(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the

person of her employer or any immediate member of her family or
her duly authorized representative; and

(e) Other causes analogous of the foregoing.

ART. 297 CLOSURE OF ESTABLISHMENT AND REDUCTION OF

PERSONNEL

XXX

ART. 298. DISEASE AS GROUND FOR TERMINATION

XXX

In the present controversy, it is crystal clear that the alleged illegal

act/s imputed by the Respondent against the Complainants is a mere
harassment or an offshoot of the complaint filed by the latter against the
former. The allegation made by the Respondent on the alleged missing
rolls of tarpaulin was not supported by any pieces of evidence nor
documents. It is a mere self-serving allegation or imputation which does
not deserved with credence.
In the case of Agusan Del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc., et
al. v. Cagampang, et al. [1]
, the Supreme Court held to discuss the
substantive due process in this wise:
“In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the
employer to show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause;

1
. 589 Phil. 306 (2008).

5
 failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was
illegal. The employer's case succeeds or fails on the strength of its
evidence and not on the weakness of the employee's defense. If
doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and
the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the
latter. Moreover, the quantum of proof required in determining the
legality of an employee's dismissal is only substantial evidence.
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence or
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might
conceivably opine otherwise.”

Further, in the case of De Jesus vs Guerrero III[2] , the Supreme

Court held that basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is
not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation
likewise cannot be given credence. When the complainant relies on mere
conjectures and suppositions, and fails to substantiate his allegations, the
complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.

In the instant case, Respondent averred and alleged on the missing

rolls of tarpaulin without any pieces of evidence or documents to
substantiate his allegation. Considering that the allegation is not
supported with pieces of evidence, the same cannot be given with
credence. Hence, it is clear that there was neither just nor authorized
cause for the termination of the complainants. As the complainants were
dismissed neither for just nor authorized causes, their dismissal, then, is
illegal.

In addition, it must be borne in mind that the basic principle in

termination cases is that the burden of proof rests upon the employer to
show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause, and failure to do so
would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and, therefore,
was illegal [Polymedic General Hospital v. NLRC, G.R. No. 64190, January
31, 1985, 134 SCRA 420; and also Article 277 of the Labor Code].

SECOND ISSUE: (SERVICE INCENTIVE

LEAVE PAY, HOLIDAY PAY, REST DAY PAY,
OVERTIME PAY)

2
. 614 Phil. 520, 529

6
 As to the entitlement of service incentive leave pay, rest day pay
and holiday pay premiums, the Complainants believe that they are entitled
to the same just like all other regular employees and as guaranteed by the
Labor Code of the Philippines. The complainants were deprived of their
service incentive leave pay, holiday and rest day premium pay.

The Labor Code provides for an 8-hour normal hours of work

pursuant to Art. 83 thereof and work rendered in excess of 8 hours should
be paid the overtime pay in accordance with Art. 87. Inasmuch as the
Complainants rendered ten (10) hours per day of work, they are entitled to
overtime pay.

THIRD ISSUE (UNDERPAYMENT OF SALARY)

The Complainants were underpaid throughout their employment

with the Respondent. For instance, when they were receiving a daily wage
ranging from Php 180.00 to Php210.00 in 2016 when Wage Order No. RB I-
18 took effect, the minimum daily wage mandated was already Php 252.00
for small business establishment. The subsequent daily wage increases
granted to the Complainants over the years was not able to reach the
amount prescribed in the aforementioned wage order which has since
been superseded by subsequent wage orders.

The Complainants respectfully submit that they should have been

receiving the daily minimum wage so provided by the wage orders issued
by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board – Region I and
considering that they have not received the legal wage mandated by law,
they should be paid the salary differential.

FIFTH ISSUE: (NOMINAL DAMAGES,

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND MORAL
DAMAGES)
The herein Complainant are entitled to moral damages because the
dismissal of the complainant was attended by bad faith of constitutive of
an act oppressive to labor. In the case of Lim vs. National Labor
Relations Commission[3], the Supreme Court uphold the award of moral

3
. GR No. 79907 March 16, 1989

7
as well as exemplary damages in view of the bad faith attendant to the
treatment of the employee.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Labor Arbiter, that decision be rendered, to wit:

1. Declaring the termination of the herein Complainant as

illegal and further, ordering Respondent to pay unto the
Complainant separation pay, the 13th month pay from the year
they started to work on the establishment of the Respondent
until they were illegally dismissed rendered and his salary for
December 1 to 6, 2010.

2. Ordering the Respondent to pay to the Complainants the

salary differential due to him.

3. Ordering the Respondent to pay to the Complainants their

SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY, HOLIDAY PAY, REST DAY
PREMIUM PAY, AND OVERTIME PAY that were all deprived from
him during thier entire employment with the Respondent.

4. Furthermore, it is likewise prayed unto the Honorable

Labor Arbiter to order the Respondent to pay the herein
Complainants the amount of Php 100,000.00 as moral damages
and the amount of Php 50,000.00 as exemplary damages.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are also prayed
for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Agoo, La Union December 3, 2019.

_______________ _______________

8
 JEFFREY SANTOS TEDDY BOADILLA

Complainant Complainant

____________________
JOHNY MABITAZAN
Complainant

Copy furnished: (by Registered Mail)

ERNESTO S. DELA CRUZ

Schoolmate Ads and Print Solution
Aspiras Street, Consolacion, Agoo, La Union

Republic of the Philippines )

Agoo, La Union ) S.S.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

We, JEFFREY SANTOS, TEDDY BOADILLA, and JOHNY

MABITAZAN, all of legal ages, Filipino, former employees of Schoolmate
Ads and Print Solution owned and managed by Mr. Ernesto S. Dela Cruz
with postal business address at Aspiras Bldg, Brgy. Consolacion, Agoo, La

9
Union, after having been sworn to on oath in accordance with law, hereby
depose and state:

That we are the complainant in the above-entitled labor case;

That we have caused the preparation of the foregoing Position Paper;

That we have read all the allegations therein contained and certify
that the same are true and correct based on our own personal knowledge
and from authentic records.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, We have hereunto set our hands this 3 rd day

of December 2019 at Agoo, La Union.

_______________ _______________
JEFFREY SANTOS TEDDY BOADILLA

Complainant Complainant
____________________
JOHNY MABITAZAN
Complainant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd day of December

2019 at Agoo, La Union. Affiant personally came and exhibited to their
proof of identity, bearing their photograph and signature, known to me as
the same persons who personally signed the foregoing instrument before
me.

ATTY. HAROLD PALATTAO ESTACIO

Counsel
2nd floor, Aspiras Bldg., Consolacion, Agoo, La Union
Roll No. 72000; 06.13.18
IBP OR No. 080293 ; 04.24.19
PTR No. 3314281; 04.03.19
IBP-La Union Chapter
TIN No. 217-113-135
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0028965; 10.07.19

Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2019

10
11
12