NLRC Position Paper JOJO

8/10/2019 NLRC Position Paper JOJO

1/15

Republic of the PhilippinesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

National Capital RegionQuezon City

JUNTINO S. A AIR! N RC"NCR CAS# NO. $%"&&'()"&*

Co+plainant!

",e-sus"

OC /##0 0#T#CTI1# 2 3ATC/4AN A5#NC6! INC.!Respon7ent!

8 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 8

POSITION PAPER

CO4P AINANT unto this /ono-able abo- A-bit-ation O9ce +ost

-espectfully sub+its this position pape- an7 a,e-s the follo:ing to :it;

PREFATORY STATEMENT

The Co+plainant in this case is JUNTINO S. A AIR! of legal age!

single! :ith post o9ce a77-ess at hee7 0etecti,e 2 3atch+an Agency! Inc. on Septe+be-

&%%). ?-o+ then on! he :as assigne7 by the Respon7ent to its ,a-ious

clients :ithin 4et-o 4anila a-ea. The business un7e-ta>ing of the sai7

Respon7ent is to 7eploy Secu-ity 5ua-7s to its ,a-ious clients all o,e- the

Philippines :ith >no:n siste- co+panies in,ol,e7 in the sa+e line of

business li>e A01ANC# ?ORC#S S#CURIT6 2 IN1#STI5ATION S#R1IC#S!

INC! :he-e in fact! the Co+plainant :as 7eploye7 by the Respon7ent

so+eti+e in &%%' fo- +o-e o- less @,e (B to si8 B +onths a copy of the

issue7 I7enti@cation Ca-7 is attache7 he-eto as Anne8 DAEB! the

Co+plainant is Fust one of its thousan7s of e+ployee secu-ity gua-7s. A

1


2/15

copy of the I7enti@cation Ca-7 issue7 by the Respon7ent to the

Co+plainant is he-eto attache7 as Anne8 D=E as p-oof of the latte-Gs

e+ploy+ent.

The Co+plainant :o->e7 fo- si8 B 7ays a :ee> but so+eti+es ha,eto -en7e- se,en . /e no-+ally :o->e7 fo- ' hou-s pe- 7ay

but the-e :e-e ti+es he has to -en7e- t:el,e &HB hou-s 7epen7ing on

thei- assigne7 post.

The +onthly :age -age of the Co+plainant is +o-e o- less Php

&)!*$$ inclusi,e of CO A! Unifo-+ allo:ance! Incenti,e Pay! Night

0i e-ential if anyB! A77itional Ti+e! as -e ecte7 in his latest payslipshe-ein attache7 as Anne8 DCE.

So+eti+e in H$&&! the Co+plainant :as assigne7 in the =u-eau of

Inte-nal Re,enue =IRB NO= Secu-ity 0etach+ent in Agha+ Roa7! 0ili+an!

Quezon City as sho:n by he-ein attache7 Anne8 D0E an7 as -e ecte7 in

the payslips Anne8 DCE.

On ?eb-ua-y H$&*! Co+plainant an7 his co" secu-ity gua-7s :e-e

tol7 by the Respon7ent that thei- cont-act :ith thei- client =IR :as no

longe- -ene:e7 an7 thus :e-e tol7 to :ait fo- thei- ne8t assign+ent o-

posting. The-eafte-! Co+plainant +a7e follo:" ups in the Respon7entGs

o9ce -ega-7ing his ne8t assign+ent o- posting ho:e,e- :as tol7 by the

o9ce-" in" cha-ge to :ait an7 in fact in so+e instances tol7 that he :as

al-ea7y ol7 to be assigne7 to so+e postsK o- of because of clients

p-efe-ence. /e :as gi,en the i+p-ession that he :as al-ea7y ol7 to be

assigne7 to so+e place of 7utyK clients.

The Co+plainant :as not gi,en any +onthly pay by the Respon7ent

sta-ting f-o+ his last assign+ent o- 7uty ?eb-ua-y up to this 7ateB.

0isappointe7 :ith the Respon7entGs -esponse on his :ish to @nally

be gi,en anothe- postK 7uty! co+plainant @le7 the instant co+plaintbefo-e this /ono-able O9ce on Septe+be- '! H$&*.

On Septe+be- & an7 H)! H$&*! a +an7ato-y conciliation an7

+e7iation confe-ences :e-e hel7 but no settle+ent :as -eache7! although

the Respon7ent th-ough its -ep-esentati,eK counsel o e-e7 by :ay of

settle+ent an a+ount of +o-e o- less Php &$$!$$$. ?u-the- a +an7ato-y

confe-ence on Octobe- ' an7 &(! H$&* :e-e hel7 fo- a possibility of a+icable settle+ent an7 7ete-+ination of othe- +atte-s. /o:e,e-! on the

2


3/15

last 7ay of the hea-ing! Octobe- &(! H$&*! the counselK -ep-esentati,e fo-

the Respon7ent o e-e7 the Co+plainant a 0etail 0uty O-7e- K Special

O-7e- fo- Assign+ent at Quezon City /all as -e ecte7 in the +inutes of

that last hea-ing he-ein attache7 as Anne8 D#EB but the latte- 7i7 not

accept the belate7 o e-. The Co+plainant ga,e the in7ication that 7ue tost-aine7 -elations an7 the insinuation that he is al-ea7y ol7 to be gi,en

anothe- position K 7uty -efuse7 to be -einstate7. As a conseLuence! this

/ono-able O9ce issue7 an o-7e- 7i-ecting the pa-ties to sub+it thei-

-especti,e position pape-.

/ence! this position pape-.

ISSUES

&. 3/#T/#R OR NOT T/# CO4P AINANT 3AS I #5A 6

0IS4ISS#0.

H. 3/#T/#R OR NOT CO4P AINANT IS #NTIT #0 TO S#PARATION

PA6 O? & ON#B 4ONT/ SA AR6 ?OR #1#R6 6#AR O? S#R1IC#!

&) T/ 4ONT/ PA6 ?OR T/# 6#AR H$&*! S#R1IC# INC#NTI1# #A1#

PA6! /O I0A6 PA6! O1#RTI4#K NI5/T 0I??#R#NTIA PA6! UNI?OR4

A O3ANC#! =AC 3A5#S AN0 OT/#R =#N#?ITS 4AN0AT#0 =6

A3.

). 3/#T/#R OR NOT! T/# R#SPON0#NT IS IA= # TO T/#

CO4P AINANT ?OR #M#4P AR6 0A4A5#S AN0 4ORA 0A4A5#S.

*. 3/#T/#R OR NOT CO4P AINANT IS #NTI #0 TO R#CO1#R

ATTORN#6GS ?##S ?RO4 R#SPON0#NT.

DISCUSSIONS

?IRST ISSU#; I #5A 0IS4ISSA B

?-o+ the fo-egoing facts! it is clea- that the 7is+issal of the

co+plainant :as illegal thus he shoul7 be pai7 of his sepa-ation pay as

p-o,i7e7 by la:. The Respon7ent :as put on a D?loating StatusE fo- a

pe-io7 e8cee7ing si8 B +onths. The oating status of such an

e+ployee shoul7 last only fo- a -easonable ti+e. As in the case of Ag-o

Co++e-cial Secu-ity Se-,ices! Agency! Inc. ,s N RC (G.R. Nos. 82823-24,

3


4/15

July 31, 1989 B :he-e in this case! D-espon7ent labo- a-bite- co--ectly hel7

that :hen the oating status of sai7 e+ployees lasts fo- +o-e than si8

B +onths! they +ay be consi7e-e7 to ha,e been illegally 7is+isse7 f-o+

the se-,ice. Thus! they a-e entitle7 to the co--espon7ing bene@ts fo- thei-

sepa-ation.E

?u-the- in Sentinel Secu-ity Agency! Inc. ,s. N RC! et.al. G.R.

122468, Sept. 3, 1998 B! states that! DA oating status -eLui-es the 7i-e

e8igency of the e+ploye-Gs bona @7e suspension of ope-ation! business o-

un7e-ta>ing. In secu-ity se-,ices! this happens :hen the clients that 7o

not -ene: thei- cont-acts :ith a secu-ity agency a-e +o-e than those that

7o an7 the ne: ones that the agency gets. /o:e,e-! in the case at ba-!the Agency :as a:a-7e7 a ne: cont-act by the Client. The-e :as no

su-plus of secu-ity gua-7s o,e- a,ailable assign+ents. If the-e :e-e! it

:as because the Agency hi-e7 ne: secu-ity gua-7s. Thus! the-e :as no

suspension of ope-ation! business o- un7e-ta>ing! bona @7e o- not! that

:oul7 ha,e Fusti@e7 placing the co+plainants o "7etail an7 +a>ing the+

:ait fo- a pe-io7 of si8 +onths. If in7ee7 they :e-e +e-ely t-ansfe--e7!

the-e :oul7 ha,e been no nee7 to +a>e the+ :ait fo- si8 +onths. The

only logical conclusion f-o+ the fo-egoing 7iscussion is that the Agency

illegally 7is+isse7 the co+plainants.E

In all in7ications the Respon7ent has no -eason not to gi,e anothe-

7uty o- position to the Co+plainant fo- a pe-io7 e8cee7ing si8 B +onths

consi7e-ing it is one of the biggest Secu-ity Agencies in the count-y :ith

>no:n othe- siste- secu-ity agencies as +entione7 in the fo-egoing. The

Respon7ent in fact continues to hi-e ne: Secu-ity 5ua-7s an7 ha,e poste7

the+ all o,e- thei- clients he-e in 4et-o 4anila an7 the -est of the count-y.

The Respon7ent has so +any clients in the count-y! the belate7 o e- of

the Respon7ent of a ne: 0etailK 0uty assign+ent to the Co+plainant

bea-s this out an7 as pe- >no:le7ge of the latte- that assign+ent being

o e-e7 at the Quezon City /allB :as al-ea7y e8isting a long ti+e ago.

Thus! const-ucti,e 7is+issal is gla-ing in this instant case.

S#CON0 ISSU#; S#PARATION PA6 O? & ON#B 4ONT/ SA AR6 ?OR #1#R6

6#AR O? S#R1IC#! &)T/ 4ONT/ PA6 ?OR T/# 6#AR H$&*! S#R1IC#

INC#NTI1# #A1# PA6! /O I0A6 PA6! O1#RTI4#K NI5/T 0I??#R#NTIA PA6!

UNI?OR4 A O3ANC#! =AC 3A5#S! AN0 OT/#R =#N#?ITS 4AN0AT#0 =6

A3.B

As to the entitle+ent of &)th

4onth pay! se-,ice incenti,e lea,e pay!holi7ay pay p-e+iu+s! o,e-ti+eK night 7i e-ential pay! unifo-+ allo:ance

4


5/15

an7 othe- bene@ts +an7ate7 by la:! the Co+plainant belie,es that he is

entitle7 to the sa+e Fust li>e all othe- -egula- e+ployees an7 as

gua-antee7 by the abo- Co7e of the Philippines. The co+plainant by

-eason of the illegal 7is+issal :as 7ep-i,e7 of his &)th 4onth pay! se-,ice

incenti,e lea,e pay! holi7ay pay p-e+iu+s! o,e-ti+eK night 7i e-entialpay! unifo-+ allo:ance an7 othe- bene@ts.

The Co+plainant 7oes not p-ay fo- -einstate+ent in fact! opte7 not

to be -einstate7. Thus! follo:ing the case of Sentinel Secu-ity Agency! Inc.

,s. N RC! et.al. G.R. 122468, Sept. 3, 1998 B :hen Dho:e,e-!

-einstate+ent is no longe- feasible in this case. The Agency cannot

-eassign the+ to the Client! as the fo-+e- has -ec-uite7 ne: secu-itygua-7s the co+plainants! on the othe- han7! -efuse to accept othe-

assign+ents. 1e-ily! co+plainants 7o not p-ay fo- -einstate+ent in fact!

they -efuse7 to be -einstate7. Such -efusal is in7icati,e of st-aine7

-elations. Thus! sepa-ation pay is a:a-7e7 in lieu of -einstate+ent.E

The Co+plainant is entitle7 to sepa-ation pay as a9-+e7 by the

Sup-e+e Cou-t in the case of Ag-o Co++e-cial! as :ell as the case of

Sentinel Secu-ity Agency! state7 abo,e! Dthus! :hen the labo- a-bite-

-en7e-e7 his 7ecision! he consi7e-e7 those :ho ha,e been out of :o-> o-

oating status fo- a pe-io7 e8cee7ing si8 B +onths to ha,e been

te-+inate7 f-o+ the se-,ice :ithout Fust cause thus entitling the+ to the

co--espon7ing bene@ts fo- such sepa-ation.E Thus! pu-suant to A-ticle H')

of the abo- Co7e the Co+plainant is entitle7 to his sepa-ation pay

eLui,alent to one &B +onth pay fo- e,e-y yea- of se-,ice.

The Co+plainant by -eason of his illegal 7is+issal is entitle7 to

bac>:ages! the Sup-e+e Cou-t p-onounce7 in Philippine In7ust-ial

Secu-ity Agency Co-p. ,s. 0apiton 377 Phil. 951, 966 (1999 B! Dthat the

bac>:ages ha7 to be pai7 by the e+ploye- as pa-t of the p-ice o- penalty

he ha7 to pay fo- illegally 7is+issing his e+ployee. It :as to be co+pute7

f-o+ the ti+e of the e+ployeeGs illegal 7is+issal up to the ti+e of his

-einstate+ent.E

T/IR0 ISSU#; #M#4P AR6 0A4A5#S AN0 4ORA 0A4A5#SB

The he-ein Co+plainant is entitle7 to +o-al 7a+ages because the

7is+issal of the co+plainant :as atten7e7 by ba7 faith of constituti,e of

an act opp-essi,e to labo-. In the case of i+ ,s. National abo- Relations

Co++ission G.R. No. 79907, !"#h 16, 1989$ ! the Sup-e+e Cou-t

5


6/15

uphel7 the a:a-7 of +o-al as :ell as e8e+pla-y 7a+ages in ,ie: of the

ba7 faith atten7ant to the t-eat+ent of the e+ployee.

In the instant case! the-e is no othe- plausible e8planation fo- the

acts o- its conspicuous absenceB of the Respon7ent of the +anne-:he-ein the Co+plainant :as 7ep-i,e7 of his e+ploy+ent e8cept ba7

faith. One gla-ing p-oof is its belate7 o e- o- an afte-thought to

ci-cu+,ent the la:B to the Co+plainant of a ne: 0etailK 0uty only :hen

he has al-ea7y co++ence7 @ling of this co+plaint. Anothe- :as :hen in

the cou-se of the Conciliation" 4e7iation p-ocess as state7 abo,eB the

Respon7ent th-ough its counselK -ep-esentati,e o e-e7 the Co+plainant a

+eage- su+ in o-7e- fo- hi+ to @nally Luit an7 be consi7e-e7 sepa-ate7f-o+ se-,ice. These a-e clea-ly abusi,e con7uct of the Respon7ent an7 an

atte+pt to e8ploit the socio" econo+ic stan7ing of its e+ployeesK :o->e-s.

This is opp-essi,e thus :a--ants #8e+pla-y 0a+ages fo- the Co+plainant

by :ay of e8a+ple o- co--ection fo- the public goo7.

?u-the-+o-e! as the Co+plainant su e-e7 +ental anguish! se-ious

an8iety! bes+i-che7 -eputation! an7 social hu+iliation by -eason of the

Respon7entGs un-easonable acts an7 in pa-ticula- because the fo-+e- has

to face @nancial unce-tainty cause7 by this egal Action a clai+ fo- 4o-al

0a+ages the-efo-e is in o-7e-.

?OURT/ ISSU#; R#SPON0#NT IS IA= # ?OR ATTORN#6GS ?##S

Un7e- A-ticle HH$' of the Ne: Ci,il Co7e! atto-ney s fees can be

-eco,e-e7 in actions fo- the -eco,e-y of :ages of labo-e-s an7 actions fo-

in7e+nity un7e- e+ploye- s liability la:s. Atto-ney s fees a-e also

-eco,e-able :hen the 7efen7ant s act o- o+ission has co+pelle7 the

Plainti to incu- e8penses to p-otect his inte-est.

In the instant case! -espon7entGs -efusal to gi,e co+plainant anothe-

7utyK post in an un-easonable pe-io7 of ti+e an7 :he-e in fact the-e :e-e

a lot of thei- e8isting clients :he-e the latte- coul7 ha,e been gi,en ne:assign+entK 7utyK post :hich is tainte7 :ith ba7 faith has co+pelle7 the

co+plainant to hi-e the se-,ices of the counsels o- atto-neys fo- a fee

f-o+ consultations! nota-ization etc.B in o-7e- to p-otect his -ight an7

inte-est.

P R A Y E R

6


7/15

WHEREFORE ! p-e+ises consi7e-e7! it is +ost -espectfully p-aye7 of

this /ono-able abo- A-bite-! that 7ecision be -en7e-e7! to :it;

&. 0ecla-ing the act of the he-ein Respon7ent as constituting

illegal 7is+issal.H. O-7e-ing Respon7ent to pay unto the Co+plainant

sepa-ation pay of & oneB 4onth sala-y fo- e,e-y yea- of se-,ice! &)th +onth pay fo- the yea- H$&*! se-,iceincenti,e lea,e pay! holi7ay pay! o,e-ti+eK night7i e-ential pay! unifo-+ allo:ance! bac>:ages! an7 othe-bene@ts +an7ate7 by la:.

). O-7e-ing the Respon7ent to pay his sala-y fo- the +onth of 4a-ch H$&* up to the 7isposition of this case -ep-esenting

=AC 3A5#S.

*. ?u-the-+o-e! it is li>e:ise p-aye7 unto the /ono-able

abo- A-bite- to o-7e- the Respon7ent to pay the he-ein

Co+plainant the a+ount of Php &$$!$$$ as +o-al

7a+ages an7 the a+ount of Php ($! $$$ as e8e+pla-y

7a+ages.

(. Respon7ent pay the Atto-neyGs fees eLui,alent to &$ of

the Fu7g+ent a:a-7.

Othe- -eliefs Fust an7 eLuitable un7e- the p-e+ises a-e also p-aye7

fo-.

R#SP#CT?U 6 SU=4ITT#0.

Quezon City! No,e+be- )! H$&*.

1#RI?ICATION an7 C#RTI?ICAT# O? NON" ?ORU4 S/OPPIN5

I! JUNTINO S. A AIR! of legal age an7 ?ilipino! afte- ha,ing been 7uly

s:o-n to in acco-7ance :ith la:! 7epose an7 state T/AT;

I a+ the co+plainant in the abo,e"entitle7 case I ha,e cause7 thep-epa-ation of the fo-egoing position pape- an7 I ha,e -ea7 the sa+e an7the contents of :hich a-e t-ue an7 co--ect of +y o:n >no:le7ge an7Ko- onthe basis of authentic 7ocu+ents.

?u-the-+o-e! in co+pliance :ith the Rules of Cou-t! I he-eby ce-tify that Iha,e not co++ence7 any othe- action o- p-ocee7ings in,ol,ing the sa+eissues in the Sup-e+e Cou-t! the Cou-t of Appeals! o- 7i e-ent 7i,isionsthe-eof! o- any othe- t-ibunal o- agency an7 that to the best of +y>no:le7ge! no such action o- p-ocee7ing is pen7ing in the Sup-e+e Cou-t!

7


8/15

the Cou-t of Appeals! o- any othe- t-ibunal o- agency. If I lea-n that asi+ila- action o- p-ocee7ing has been @le7 o- is pen7ing befo-e theSup-e+e Cou-t! the Cou-t of Appeals! o- any othe- t-ibunal o- agency! Ishall notify the cou-t! t-ibunal o- agency :ithin @,e (B 7ays f-o+ notice.

IN 3ITN#SS 3/#R#O?! I he-eunto a98 +y signatu-e this No,e+be-)! H$&*

JUNTINO S. A AIR A9ant

SU=SCRI=#0 AN0 S3ORN to befo-e +e this 7ay of No,e+be-! H$&*the a9ant has pe-sonally appea-e7 befo-e +e an7 e8hibiting to +e his

issue7 at on .

NOTAR6 PU= IC

8


9/15

ANN#M DAE

9


10/15

ANN#M D=E

10


11/15

11


12/15

ANN#M DCE

12


13/15

13


14/15


15/15

ANN#M D#E

NLRC Position Paper JOJO

Documents

Transcript of NLRC Position Paper JOJO