Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. X
Cagayan De Oro City

Juan De La Cruz
Complainant LBR # 123456

For: Claim for

Separation Benefits and
Damages
VS
ABC Corporation
John Smith, President
Defendant
----------------------------------X

POSITION PAPER FOR THE COMPLAINANT

COMPLAINANT by the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable

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

THE PARTIES

Complainant Juan De La Cruz ( Hereafter referred to as complainant )

is a of legal age, Filipino, single and a resident of 14th Street Barangay Pula
Tablon, Cagayan De Oro City. He can be served with notices, orders,
resolutions and other processes of this Honorable court at the address of
his undersigned counsel.

Respondent ABC Corportation. (hereinafter referred to as

respondent ABC) is a Philippine corporation engaged the selling of

Page 1 of 6
automobiles. It may be served with summons, orders, resolutions and other
processes of this Honorable Court. At Tablon, Cagayan De Oro City

Respondent John Smith (hereinafter referred to as respondent Smith)

is the President of respondent ABC Corporation. He is of legal age, Filipino
and with office address at Tablon, Cagayan De Oro City may be served with
notices, orders and resolutions of this Honorable court.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. On January 2, 2010, the parties entered into an Employment

Contract for complainant as a driver in ABC Corporation, Tablon
Branch under the following terms, to wit:
 That the complainant shall be employed for two years
beginning from January 2010 to December 2020.
 That the complainant shall receive a basic monthly salary of
Php 12, 500.00, exclusive of overtime pay.
 That the complainant shall render full eight-hour shift from
Mondays to Fridays, from 7:00 AM until 4:00 PM.

2. On February 2, 2020 at 8:00 o clock in the morning, the complainant

had a vehicular accident using the company car, it was rendered un
repairable.

3. The respondent Smith scolded the complainant for 3 hours and

suspended the complainant for 30 days without any chance to
explain his side.

4. Upon the end of the 30-day suspension the complainant was shocked
to learn that his employment was terminated without notice nor due
process.

5. The complainant filed a labor case against the respondent ABC

docketed LBR# 1234567 at the Department of Labor and
Employment Branch 10.

6. The complainant avers that he was constructively dismissed without

notice and due process.

7. The Respondent ABC Corporation did not follow the process upon
which the Human Resource department of the Corporation in charge
to deal with Employer and Employee relations.

Page 2 of 6
 8. The complainant decided to seek the assistance of The Department
of Labor and employment for his severance pay and compensation
for damage
PROPOSED ISSUES TO RESOLVED

1. Whether or not the complainant was illegally dismissed?

2. Whether or not the complainant is entitled to Severance pay and
moral, nominal and exemplary damages?

DISSCUSSION AND ARGUMENTS

The complainant thru the undersigned counsel respectfully submits
in the affirmative in all issues.

COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED BY WAY OF CONSTRUCTIVE

DISMISSAL.

The complainant in this case was illegally dismissed thru constructive

dismissal. Constructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work
because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or
unlikely as when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or when a
clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes
unbearable to the employee leaving the latter with no other option but to
quit (The University of Immaculate Conception v. NLRC, G.R. No. 181146,
January 26, 2011).

In the instant case, the complainant has was not given any definite
answer as to why he was abruptly terminated from service. The HR
Manager did not even bother to explain his current status and at least
advise if he will be still given a job after his 30 day suspension. It cannot be
denied that his employment has been rendered impossible, unreasonable,
or unlikely.

Inasmuch as the illegal dismissal is concerned, Article 277 (b) of the

Labor Code specifically requires the employer to furnish the worker or
employee sought to be dismissed with two written notice, i.e., a notice
which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omission for which
his dismissal is sought, and a subsequent notice which informs the

Page 3 of 6
employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him (Kiamco vs. NLRC, G.R.
No. 129449, June 29, 1999). In the present case, any of such notices was
not received by the complainant.
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).

THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO SEVERENCE PAY AND MORAL,

NOMINAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

Evidently, the respondents violated the statutory right of the herein

complainant pursuant to the Article 279 of the Labor Code.

In the case of MCMER CORPORATION, INC. vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 193421
, June 4, 2014), as regards to constructive dismissal, the award of full
backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, moral, exemplary and
nominal damages is in order pursuant to Article 279 of the Labor Code.
Furthermore, in the case of Lim vs. NLRC (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 case of Jenny Agabon and Virgilio Agabon vs. NLRC (G.R.
No. 158693, November 17, 2004), for illegal dismissal committed by the
employer, they were ordered to indemnify the employee for the violation
of his statutory right which warrants the indemnity in the form of nominal
damages.
The foregoing facts provided that the complainant is deemed proper
to receive the damages prayed for due to illegal dismissal by way of
constructive termination.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that

judgment be issued declaring that the complainant has been ILLEGALLY
DISMISSED by way of CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL by the respondents.

Page 4 of 6
 FURTHER, it is respectfully prayed that the respondents be ordered
to pay or issue to the complainant, as the case may be:
1. SEVERANCE PAY from the date of his employment January 2020 to his
constructive dismissal on March 2020 and other benefits.

2. MORAL DAMAGES of P50, 000.00.

3. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES of P100, 000.00.

4. NOMINAL DAMAGES of P10, 000.00.

FINALLY, the complainant respectfully pays for such and other reliefs
as may be deemed just and equitable as this Honorable court may deem.
Most respectfully submitted.
Cagayan De Oro City, Philippines. March 2, 2020.

JUAN DE LA CRUZ
COMPLAINANT

PATRICK JOSE BACAN ROA

_________________________
IPB NO. XXXXX-XXXXX
PTR NO. XXXX-XXXX
MCLE NO. XXX-XXX-XX
ROLL NO. XXX-XX-XX-X
PHONE NO. 0917-XXX-XXXX

Page 5 of 6
COPY FIRNISHED:

ABC CORPORATION
Tablon, Cagayan De Oro City

ATTY. JUAN MOOR TAYEM

Counsel for the Respondents
7th floor, Jade building
Cagayan De Oro City

EXPLANATION

Copies of this position paper are being filed and served though personal
Service.

Page 6 of 6