Anda di halaman 1dari 5

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT


NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
REGIONAL ARBITRATION BRANCH NO. III
CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA

TONY B. HORN,
Complainant,

-versus- NLRC CASE NO. RAB-III 03-1648-09-P

OPSEC INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC. and


HUNTER HAYNES
NORMAN HAYNES
MATILDE HAYNES,
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

POSITION PAPER
Complainant, through counsel and unto this Honorable Office most
respectfully submits this Position Paper, thus:

THE PARTIES
Complainant is an American, of legal age, married and a resident of
Sapang Biabas, Mabalacat, Pampanga, where he may be served with the
processes of this Honorable office.

Respondent OPSEC INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC, is corporation


existing under the laws with principal office address at Sarita Street, Balibago,
Angeles City, and the respondents NORMAN HAYNES, HUNTER HAYNES, and
MATILDE HAYNES are the Financier, Managing Director and Operating Partner
of said corporation at the same address where they may be served with
processes of this Honorable Office.

STATEMENT OF FACTS/CASE

Complainant was employed on September 15, 2006 as an Administration


Officer of the respondent company and the nature of his work cash
disbursement. The Complainant was on a four hour daily work schedule until he
was terminated and dismissed on October 25, 2008, without justifiable cause and
without due process. His salary at the time of his dismissal was $1,200.00 per
month for a 20 hour work week (Monday through Friday, 8:00am to 12:00 noon).

Initially, the complainant was hired for a Monday through Friday work
schedule. When employed by OPSEC INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC., Mr. Horn
entered an agreement that he would work daily schedule Monday through Friday
between the hours of 8:00 am to 12:00 noon (four hours per day, twenty hours
per week). His salary was to be $500.00 per month or $5.77 (Five Dollars and
Seventy Seven five cents) per regular work hour and $8.66 (Eight Dollars and
sixty six cents) per hour of overtime. From September 15, 2006 to January 1,
2008 Mr. Horn worked a total of Sixty Eight (68) weeks and averaged 46 hours of
overtime per week. Beginning January 1, 2008 the company decided to give Mr.
Horn a pay increase to $1200.00 per month which would result in a regular
hourly rate of $13.85 (Thirteen Dollars and Eighty Five Cents) per hour and an
increase in overtime wage to $22.50 (Twenty Two Dollars and Fifty Cents) per
hour of overtime worked. He was told that the pay raise was due to the fact that
all foreign employees got benefits such as rent, utilities, food allowance and all
expenses paid. Mr. Horn had worked for the company over a year and a half and
had never utilized company funds entrusted to him for any such benefits,
therefore they gave him a raise in pay for his prudence and trustworthiness.
During the period of January 1 2008 to October 13, 2008 Mr. Horn worked Forty
(40) work weeks and averaged 46 hours of overtime per week. Also, Mr. Horn
was not paid at all for services rendered in the Month of October 2008 in which
he had worked nearly two weeks.

Although Mr. Horn was a permanent employee, he, like all OPSEC
employees, never received any benefits afforded him by the Philippine Law, to
include, retirement, health insurance, holiday pay, vacation pay or 13 month pay.

On October 13, 2008 Mr. Horn departed for Jerusalem on a company


authorized vacation without pay and upon his return was phoned by Mr. Norman
Haynes and was told not to return to work on Monday 27 October 2008. Mr. Horn
asked, “Why?” and Mr. Haynes told him just don’t return back to work cause if he
were in the Monday meeting, “nothing good could come out of it”. When Mr. Horn
attempted to enter the compound to get his personal belongings he was refused
entry in the company premises.

Approximately two weeks after Mr. Haynes illegally dismissed Mr. Horn,
Mr. Haynes called Mr. Horn and asked if he had company backup files and if Mr.
Horn could come and reinstall the lost files on the OPSEC administration
computers due to the fact that they had lost all company data and needed help.
Mr. Horn and another former OPSEC former admin employee, Neal Cortez,
graciously returned and gave the backup files to Miss Ann, the new
administration officer hired in the place of Mr. Horn, and asked the new office
staff if there were any questions that they could help them with and the new
office personnel had no further questions. MR. Horn and Mr. Cortez were only
admitted into the compound under an armed guard status in which the armed
guard had continual surveillance on them for the duration of the visit, from
entrance to exit.
During his employment with OPSEC INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC. Mr.
Horn was never reprimanded for his work performance whether by verbal or
written statement and was illegally dismissed by Mr. Norman Haynes.

ISSUES
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT WAS
ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM EMPLOYMENT

WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT IS


ENTITLED TO HIS MONETARY CLAIMS AND
DAMAGES.

DISCUSSION/ARGUMENTS
We respectfully submit that the respondents are liable for illegal dismissal,
for dismissing herein Complainant without due process of law. It is a basic
requirement that before an employee could be dismissed by an employer, he
should first be accorded due process. Furthermore, said employee should only
be dismissed for just cause or after it is proven in a formal investigation
participated in by the employee concerned, that the accusation is true and that
he is guilty thereof.

In the instant case, there were no explanations given to the complainant


for reason of dismissal or any prior write-ups for neither substandard job
performance or any other company violations. On the contrary, the complainant
was praised many times for his work habits which resulted in a 120% salary
increase since the inception of his employment. This salary increase alone gives
insight to the impeccable job performance of Mr. Horn. No company would give
such a reward to an average employee and many would not give this type of
Salary increase to a good employee. Therefore, His work performance must
have been commendable and praiseworthy. The respondent company seemed to
find no justifiable reason for the employee’s dismissal. The respondent company
still has never given the complainant due cause and reason of why the he was
dismissed.

This is undoubtedly a violation to the right to security of tenure. More so,


the imposition of a penalty of dismissal for absolutely no offense rendered by Mr.
Horn is not only improper but inhuman as well.

It can further be gleaned that the ulterior motive of the respondent


company in dismissing the complainant is to get rid of an employee who had
verbalized his opposition to their lack of providing benefits for their Filipino
workers, which included SSS, Phil-Health, 13 Month Pay, Overtime Pay, Holiday
Pay and Pag-Ibig.

On account of the wanton, unjustifiable and illegal acts of the respondent


in illegally dismissing the complainant without just cause and without him due
process, the complainant suffered serious anxiety, sleepless nights and mental
anguish for which the respondents should be held liable to pay in the amount of
not less than $20,000.00. In order to serve as an example so as to deter the
commission of similar acts, respondent should be made to pay the complainant
exemplary damages of not less than $10,000.00. As the complainant was
constrained to litigate on account of the wanton, unjustifiable and illegal acts
perpetrated by the respondents, the latter should be adjudged legally bound to
reimburse the complainant for Attorney’s fees in the amount equivalent to 10 %
of the monetary award that may be adjudged in this case as well as the
expenses for litigation.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed from this
Honorable Office that judgment be rendered in favor of the Complainant with the
following terms:

1. Finding the respondents liable/guilty for illegally dismissing the


complainant;

2. Ordering the respondent to pay the complainant separation pay in


the equivalent of one month pay for every year of service;

3. Ordering the respondents to pay the complainant the following:

a. Overtime pay, holiday pay; SSS, Philhealth; PAGIBIG


b. Attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the monetary award and
other legal expenses incurred in the prosecution of this case to
be determined thru the sound discretion of this Honorable
Office;

c. Moral damages of not less than $20,000.00;

d. Exemplary damages of not less than $10,000.00;

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances also prayed for.

City of San Fernando, Pampanga, May 12, 2009.

ESTRABILLO-FLORES & ASSOCIATES


LAW OFFICES
B. Mendoza St., City of San Fernando (P)
Counsel for the Complainant

BY:
SYLVIA Q. ALFONSO-FLORES
IBP No. 731468 (01-05-09)
PTR No. 6350969 (01-05-09)
City of San Fernando, Pampanga
ROLL NO. 35857
MCLE Compliance No. 0002470

VERIFICATION

I, TONY B. HORN, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with


law, hereby depose and state:

1. That I am the complainant in the above-entitled case;

2. That I caused the preparation of the foregoing Position Paper;

3. That all the allegations therein contained are true and correct to the
best of our knowledge;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 12th


day of May, 2009 at the City of San Fernando, Pampanga.

TONY B. HORN
Affiant