Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

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

JUNRELL CABILING,
MARIE ANTONETTE OÑATE, and
MA. TERESA ASPIRAS
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;

JUNRELL CABILING (Mr. Cabiling for brevity), of legal age,

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

MARIE ANTONETTE OÑATE (Miss Oñate for

brevity), of legal age, single, with residential address at Brgy. Gana,
Caba, La Union where she could be served with summons and other
legal processes of this Honorable Office; and

MA. TERESA ASPIRAS (Miss Aspiras for brevity), of legal

age, single, with residential address at Brgy. Consolacion, Agoo, La

1
 Union where she could be served with summons and other legal
processes of this Honorable Office.

The Respondent is SCHOOLMATE ADS AND PRINT SOLUTION, a

business establishment owned by Mr. ERNESTO S. DELA CRUZ, with
business address at Aspiras Bldg., Brgy. Consolacion, Agoo, La Union,
where the said establishment and owner/proprietor 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 business
establishment since CY 2012 for Mr. Cabiling, CY 2013 for Ms. Oñate and
CY 2017 for Ms. Aspiras. 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. Cabiling) for CY 2012 was

Php 180.00 per day. In the year 2016, this was increased to Php 220.00
per day. Then, in 2018, his daily wage was increased to Php 240.00 until
he was illegally terminated on September 30, 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.

For Miss Oñate, her starting salary was Php 160.00 per day for CY
2013. In the year 2014, this was increased to Php 180.00 per day. Then,
in 2016, her daily wage was increased to Php 220.00. In the year 2018,
her daily wage was increased to Php 240.00 until he was illegally
terminated on September 30, 2019. All of the aforementioned daily wage

2
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.

On the part of (Miss Aspiras), her starting salary for CY 2017 was
Php 160.00 per day. In the year 2018, this was increased to Php 180.00
per day. Then, in the mid of CY 2019, her daily wage was increased to Php
200.00 until she was illegally terminated on September 30, 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 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.

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”

Sometime on the last week of September 2019, Complainants were

notified by the Respondent that the establishment will cease its operation
on the first week of November 2019 due to its financial losses.

3
 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 WAS ILLEGALLY

DISMISSED AND WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT WAS
AFFORDED THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.

2. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO SERVICE

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

3. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT WAS 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)

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.

In our jurisdiction, the right of an employer to terminate

employment is regulated by law. Both the Constitution and our laws
guarantee security of tenure to labor and, thus, an employee can only be
validly dismissed from work if the dismissal is predicated upon any of
the just or authorized causes allowed under the Labor Code.
Correspondingly, a dismissal that is not based on either of the said causes
is regarded as illegal and entitles the dismissed employee to the payment
of backwages and, in most cases, to reinstatement.

4
 One of the authorized causes for dismissal recognized under the
Labor Code is the bona fide cessation of business or operations by
the employer. Article 298 of the Labor Code explicitly sanctions
terminations due to the employer's cessation of business or operations as
long as the cessation is bona fide or is not made ''for the purpose of
circumventing the [employees' right to security of tenure]":

Art. 298. Closure of establishment and reduction of

personnel. The employer may also terminate the employment of any
employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy,
retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of
operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for
the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a
written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and
Employment at least one (1) month. before the intended date thereof
In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices
or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a
separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at
least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.
In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or
cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to
serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall
be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month
pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at
least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year.

As stated in the provision, an employer's closure or cessation of

business or operations is regarded as an invalid ground for the
termination of employment only when the closure or cessation is made
for the purpose of circumventing the tenurial rights of the employees.

In the present controversy, it is crystal clear that the closure or

cessation was made for the purpose of circumventing the tenurial rights
of the employees. There was no bona fide cessation of business or
operations by the Respondent. In fact, Respondent merely transfer his
machines with the other outlets of his business.
From the foregoing facts, it is clear that the dismissal of the
complainant was illegal thus he should be paid of his separation pay as
provided by law. Also, no procedural process was accorded to him prior to
his termination from service.

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

5
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)

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, hence. They are
entitled to overtime pay.

THIRD ISSUE (UNDERPAYMENT OF SALARY)

The Complainants were underpaid throughout their employment

with the Respondent. For instance, Mr. Cabiling was receiving a daily wage
of Php 180.00 in 2012 when Wage Order No. RB I-14 took effect in 2010,
the minimum daily wage mandated was already Php 200.00. The
subsequent daily wage increases granted to the Complainant 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.

6
FIFTH ISSUE: (NOMINAL DAMAGES,
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND MORAL
DAMAGES)

The herein Complainants 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 [GR No. 79907 March 16, 1989], the Supreme Court uphold
the award of moral as well as exemplary damages in view of the bad faith
attendant to the treatment of the employee.

In the instant case, there is no other plausible explanation for the

acts (or its conspicuous absence) of the Respondent of the manner
wherein the Complainants were deprived of their employment except bad
faith.

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 Complainants as

illegal and further, ordering Respondent to pay unto the
Complainant separation pay, the 13th month pay for the year
when they started to work with the establishment of the
Respondent.

2. Ordering the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the

salary differential due to them.

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
them during their entire employment with the Respondent.

4. Furthermore, it is likewise prayed unto the Honorable

Labor Arbiter to order the Respondent to pay the amount of Php

7
 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.

_______________ _______________
JUNRELL CABILING MARIE ANTONETTE
OÑATE
Complainant Complainant

____________________
MA. TERESA ASPIRAS
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, JUNRELL CABILING, MARIE ANTONETTE OÑATE, and

MA. TERESA ASPIRAS, all of legal ages, Filipino, former employees of

8
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 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.

_______________ _______________
JUNRELL CABILING MARIE ANTONETTE
OÑATE
Complainant Complainant

____________________
MA. TERESA ASPIRAS
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

9
10