Position Paper For The Respondents: Republic of The Philippines

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 10

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment


NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
REGIONAL ARBITRATION BRANCH NO. III
City of San Fernando, Pampanga

RYAN JAY GAMAD,


Complainant,

-versus- NLRC CASE NO.


RAB-III-02-31235-20

R.C. RAMOS CONST. CORP.,


ET AL.,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
FOR THE RESPONDENTS

Respondents R.C. RAMOS CONST. CORP. and RODRIGO CANLAS


RAMOS, by and through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable
Office, most respectfully submit this Position Paper, to wit:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This is a case for illegal dismissal, non-remittance of SSS,


Pag-Ibig, and Philhealth contribution, non-payment of 13 th month pay,
Holiday pay, Service Incentive Leave pay, and Separation pay with
prayer for payment of backwages and other monetary claims, filed by
the complainant against the respondents.

THE PARTIES

2. Complainant RYAN JAY GAMAD is of legal age, Filipino,


married, and with residence at 646 Phase 4, Sto. Cristo, Mexico,
Pampanga, where he may be served with summons, notices, orders and
other legal processes from this Honorable Office.

3. Respondent R.C. RAMOS CONSTRUCTION CORP. is a


corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic
of the Philippines with office address at 197 Quezon Road San Roque,
Mexico, Pampanga.
4. Respondent RODRIGO CANLAS RAMOS is of legal age,
Filipino, and a resident of Villa Del Sol Subd., City of San Fernando,
Pampanga. He is the President and Chairman of the Board of R.C. Ramos
Construction Corporation.

5. For purposes of the proceedings before this Honorable


Office, respondents may be served with pleadings, resolutions, orders,
notices and other papers emanating from this Honorable Office through
the address of the undersigned counsel.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF THE CASE

6. Complainant Ryan Jay Gamad was hired by the respondent


corporation in 2018 as a “Helper” in the construction business of the
latter.

7. That most of the term of complainant and respondent’s


employer-employee relationship could be characterized as harmonious.
As a matter of fact, complainant never complained or filed any previous
action against herein respondents.

8. Around September and October of last year, complainant


Ryan Jay Gamad started incurring absences without leave and started
the habit of coming to work late. Attached hereto as Annex “A” to “A-2”
are copies of the Notices to Explain sent to him for his unreasonable
absences and tardiness covering the months of September and October
2019.

9. On November 15, 2019, PELCO-1 Project-in-Charge and


Supervisor of respondent, Engr. Benjie Carlo Manlutac, wrote a letter
addressed to the Human Resources Department of the respondent
corporation informing that he did not allow the complainant to report to
work that day at the PELCO-1 Project due to his health status/health
problems. Engr. Manlutac also stated in the said letter that complainant
abandoned his work without notice the night immediately preceding the
date of the letter. Moreover, Engr. Manlutac attached screenshots of the
text messages sent to him by the complainant’s wife using his phone
number.

10. In the said text message of complainant’s wife to Engr.


Manlutac, she informed the latter that complainant was seen spitting
blood and was experiencing health problems. Complainant’s wife even
admitted that she admonished the complainant for leaving his post
without notice or without asking for permission. In his letter, Engr.
Manlutac letter expressed that said incident was no longer about the
behavior of the complainant but a health issue as he was concerned that
complainant’s condition might be contagious. Attached hereto as Annex
“B” is a copy of Engr. Manlutac’s letter to the HR Department of the
respondent corporation and as Annex “B-1” to “B-2” are the screenshots
attached in the said letter showing the message of complainant’s wife to
Engr. Manlutac.

11. Consequently, a Notice to Explain dated 15 November 2018


was duly issued to the complainant for him to explain why he
abandoned his work and requiring him to provide a medical certificate
showing that he is fit to work. Attached hereto as Annex “C” is a copy of
the Notice to Explain dated 15 November 2018.

12. In response to the Notice to Explain dated 15 November


2018, complainant submitted a written explanation. In the said
explanation, complainant apologized to the respondent for abandoning
his work and reasoned out that it was due to his health problems.
Attached hereto as Annex “D” is a copy of the written explanation
submitted by the complainant.

13. Further, complainant underwent medical tests to determine


whether or not he is fit for work. Unfortunately, complainant was not
declared fit for work and, instead, the recommendation was that it was
company discretion whether or not to let him work as there was a
finding that he was suffering from pneumonia and that there was a right
lower lobe ovoid mass in his lungs. Attached hereto as Annex “E” to “E-
4” are the results of the tests conducted upon the complainant.

14. After much contemplation, respondent corporation sent a


Termination letter to the complainant informing him that he was being
terminated due to his medical condition and due to the fact that he was
not declared fit to work. Attached hereto as Annex “F” is a copy of the
Termination letter sent to the complainant.

15. On 13 February 2020, complainant filed a complaint before


the DOLE against herein respondents for alleged illegal dismissal, non-
remittance of SSS, Pag-Ibig, and Philhealth contribution, non-payment of
13th month pay, Holiday pay, Service Incentive Leave pay, and
Separation pay with prayer for payment of backwages and other
monetary claims.

16. The instant case was set for mandatory conference on


March 16 and 23, 2020 but the same was terminated pursuant to NLRC
Covid-19 Advisory No. 05 dated March 17, 2020.

17. Eventually, the parties were ordered by this Honorable


Office to submit their respective position papers within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the Order dated 27 July 2020.
18. Hence, this Position Paper.

ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENTS


SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL
AND FOR THE MONEY CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE
COMPLAINT.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

19. In the light of the antecedent facts and circumstances of the


case, the allegation of the complainant that he was illegally dismissed
from employment has no legal and factual basis.

20. Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended provides that:

“ART. 279. SECURITY OF TENURE

In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not


terminate the services of an employee except for just cause or
when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly
dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without
loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full
backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or
their monetary equivalent computed form the time his
compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his
actual reinstatement.” (Emphasis supplied)

21. The Supreme Court, in Imasen Philippine Manufacturing


Corp. vs. Ramonchito T. Alcon and Joann S. Papa, G.R. No. 194884,
October 22, 2014, ruled that:

“The law and jurisprudence guarantee to every employee


security of tenure. This textual and the ensuing jurisprudential
commitment to the cause and welfare of the working class
proceed from the social justice principles of the Constitution
that the Court zealously implements out of its concern for those
with less in life. Thus, the Court will not hesitate to strike down
as invalid any employer act that attempts to undermine
workers’ tenurial security. All these the State undertakes under
Article 279 (now Article 293)  of the Labor Code which bar an
employer from terminating the services of an employee, except
for just or authorized cause and upon observance of due
process.

In protecting the rights of the workers, the law, however,


does not authorize the oppression or self-destruction of
the employer. The constitutional commitment to the policy of
social justice cannot be understood to mean that every
labor dispute shall automatically be decided in favor of
labor. The constitutional and legal protection equally
recognize the employer’s right and prerogative to manage its
operation according to reasonable standards and norms of fair
play.” (Emphasis supplied)

22. While it is true that an employee enjoys security of tenure, a


right guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land, statutes, and
jurisprudence, it however does not guarantee perpetual employment as
an employer may still terminate the services of an employee if there
exists a just or authorized cause.

23. Article 284 (now Art. 299) of the Labor Code of the
Philippines authorizes an employer to dismiss an employee on the
ground of the employee being afflicted with a disease, to wit:

“Art. 284. Disease as ground for termination.  An


employer may terminate the services of an employee who has
been found to be suffering from any disease and whose
continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to
his health as well as to the health of his co-employees:
Provided, That he is paid separation pay equivalent to at least
one (1) month salary or to one-half (1/2) month salary for
every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction of at least
six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year.”

24. In this case, not only is there a just or authorized cause for a
valid termination of employment but there was also observance of due
process.

25. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the case of Solid


Development Corp. Workers Association vs. Solid Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 165995, August 14, 2007, held that:

“It is settled that to constitute a valid dismissal from


employment, two requisites must concur: (1) the dismissal
must be for any of the causes provided for in Article 282 of the
Labor Code; and (2) the employee must be afforded an
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. This means that
an employer can terminate the services of an employee for just
and valid causes, which must be supported by clear and
convincing evidence. It also means that, procedurally, the
employee must be given notice, with adequate opportunity to
be heard, before he is notified of his actual dismissal for cause.”

26. Further, in the case of Noblado et al. vs. Alfonso, G.R. No.
189229, November 23, 2015, the Supreme Court emphasized that:

“For a dismissal to be valid, the rule is that the employer


must comply with both the substantive and the procedural due
process requirements. Substantive due process requires that
the dismissal must be pursuant to either a just or an
authorized cause under Articles 282, 283  or 284  of the Labor
Code.

On the other hand, procedural due process in dismissal cases


consists of the twin requirements of notice and hearing. The
employer must furnish the employee with two written notices
before the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the
first notice apprises the employee of the particular acts or
omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the second
notice informs the employee of the employer's decision to
dismiss him. Before the issuance of the second notice, the
requirement of a hearing must be complied with by giving the
worker an opportunity to be heard.  It is not necessary that an
actual hearing be conducted.”

27. In the case of Deoferio vs. Intel Technology Philippines Inc.,


G.R. No. 202996, June 18, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that the twin-
notice requirement applies to terminations under Article 284 of the
Labor Code, said decision provides that:

“The twin-notice requirement applies


to terminations under Article 284 of
the Labor Code

The Labor Code and its IRR are silent on the procedural due
process required in terminations due to disease. Despite the
seeming gap in the law, Section 2, Rule 1, Book VI of the IRR
expressly states that the employee should be afforded
procedural due process in all cases of dismissals.

In Sy v. Court of Appeals and Manly Express, Inc. v. Payong,


Jr.,  promulgated in 2003 and 2005, respectively, the Court
finally pronounced the rule that the employer must furnish the
employee two written notices in terminations due to disease,
namely: (1) the notice to apprise the employee of the ground
for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the notice informing
the employee of his dismissal, to be issued after the employee
has been given reasonable opportunity to answer and to be
heard on his defense. These rulings reinforce the State policy of
protecting the workers from being terminated without cause
and without affording them the opportunity to explain their
side of the controversy.”

28. In the instant case, respondents complied with both the


substantive and procedural due process requirements. The complainant
was afflicted with pneumonia which is a contagious and an infectious
disease that put to risk the health of his co-employees. Moreover, the
respondents complied with the requirements of procedural due process
by serving said complainant with a notice to explain and giving him an
opportunity to explain. A notice of termination was likewise served
upon the complainant. Clearly, the respondents complied with the
requirements of due process.

29. As to the claim of the complainant regarding separation pay,


the same was already paid to him along with his wages and other
benefits shortly after the Termination letter was sent to him.

30. Contrary to the fallacious claims of the herein complainant


as regards the non-payment of 13 th month pay, Holiday Pay, and Service
Incentive Leave Pay, the respondent establishment never failed to give
its employees what is due to them. The aforementioned benefits of
respondent establishment’s employees has been paid or given to them
consistently on time.

31. Contrary also to the claim of non-remittance of SSS, Pag-


Ibig, and Philhealth contributions by the complainant, respondent
corporation has always fulfilled its duty of remitting the same to the
proper government agencies/instrumentalities for the benefit of all its
employees.

32. Anent the claim for backwages, the same are granted for
earnings a worker has lost because of his illegal dismissal. Considering
this case patently involves no illegal dismissal, respondents are not
obliged to pay such backwages.

33. As to the claim of moral damages, the same are recoverable


in dismissal cases only where the dismissal was attended by bad faith or
fraud or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. In this case, the
dismissal was valid, was done in good faith and in accordance with law.
34. In the same vein, complainant is not entitled to be awarded
exemplary damages since no dismissal was effected in a wanton,
fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner.

35. Viewed in the light of the foregoing, it is clear that the


severance of complainant from his employment is fully valid. Also, the
monetary claims are misplaced since there is no illegal dismissal and
that complainant’s entitlements under the law were already paid or
given to him.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed


unto this Honorable Office that judgment be rendered DISMISSING the
instant complaint for lack of merit.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are


likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted, City of San Fernando, Pampanga, August


7, 2020.

A.C. BENOZA LAW OFFICE


Extension Office, Ground Floor,
Data College Building, Capitol Blvd.,
Sto. Niñ o, 2000 City of San Fernando,
Pampanga, Philippines
Tel. No. (045) 435-3726
acbenozalaw@gmail.com

By:

ARAMIS C. BENOZA
Counsel for Respondents
Roll No. 41851
PTR No. 6562315, 1/2/2020, Pampanga
IBP No. 099604, 12/20/2019, Pasig City (MD 2020)
MCLE No. VI-0009865, 7/3/2018, Pasig City
MCLE Valid Until 4/14/2022
Copy Furnished:

RYAN JAY GAMAD


646 Phase 4, Sto. Cristo
Mexico, Pampanga

EXPLANATION

A copy of the foregoing Position Paper was sent to the


complainant by registered mail in view of the distance of his address.

ARAMIS C. BENOZA
VERIFICATION

I, RODRIGO C. RAMOS, of legal age, Filipino and with residence at


Villa Del Sol Subd., City of San Fernando, Pampanga, after having been
duly sworn in accordance with law, depose and say:

1. I am one of the respondents in the above-entitled case;

2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing Position Paper and


I have read and understood the same;

3. All the allegations of facts contained therein are true and


correct of my own personal knowledge and based on authentic
documents; and

4. I attest to the authenticity of the documents attached


thereto.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this


__________________ at _____________________.

RODRIGO C. RAMOS
Respondent/Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this __________________ at


_____________________ by affiant who exhibited to me his Phil. Passport No.
P2375170A, valid until 19 March 2022, known to me, who is the same
person who personally signed before me the foregoing verification and
acknowledged that he executed the same.

Doc. No. _______;


Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of 2020.

You might also like