Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and EMPLOYMENT

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Quezon City
National Capital Region
JOJO RODRIGUEZ OBLERO,
Complainant,
-versus-

NLRC CASE No. NCR-10-13544-14

Labor Arbiter: ANNI, ARDEN S.

COMMANDER GROUP OF COMPANIES/

COMMANDER SECURITY SERVICES INC./
MR. AYSON/MR. BOY ACUA,
Respondents.
X------------------------------------------X
REPLY
Complainant, assisted by the Public Attorneys Office, through the
undersigned Public Attorney and unto this Honourable Court, respectfully
submits this REPLY and avers THAT:
1. Complainant reiterates his averments in his Position Paper;
2. Respondents

would

like

to

impress

this

Honorable

Office

that

Complainant voluntarily resigned from work and his claim is without

any factual basis. The filing of this Complaint and the attachment of
the pieces of evidence will negate the allegation that Complainant
voluntarily resigned. No copy of the clearance that was mentioned in
the Position Paper of Respondents was ever given to Complainant.
Moreover, the Release and Quitclaim was not signed by Complainant.
And even assuming that Complainant indeed sign the same, he is not
barred from claiming his whatever is due to him under the law;
3. It is worthy of attention that the P3,900.00 that Respondents
kept on mentioning in their Position Paper should really be
1

returned to Complainant since that is his Money. He posted the

same as Cash Bond and Gun Bond. This amount was
deducted from his salary. He never signed any Quitclaim and
what he received was only the amount of P3,000.00;
4. Respondents further alleged that Complainant was not assigned to a
harsh and hostile environment. It should be noted that Complainant
worked for 12 hours a day and sometimes even more than that as
evidenced by the attachments to Complainants Position paper. The
extensive working hours especially during night time will really affect
the health of an individual. And Complainants overtime work was
without any payment for the same. The attached payroll was not a
proof. The Break down of the salary of Complainant was not specified
therein. What they should have issued was PAYSLIPS. If Respondents
were refuting the claim of Complainant, they have the burden;
5. Respondents

claim

that

they

have

been

diligent

in

providing

Complainant employment opportunities but he either failed to meet

the expectations of clients or that he does not like his work. This is a
general averment and requires proof. If indeed Complainant failed to
satisfy the expectations of clients, complaints from said clients, if ever
one exists, should be attached or presented and that accordingly, a
notice due to such complaint or memo was given to Complainant. But
there were none;
6. As to the allegation that Complainant has no proof for his overtime
work, attached in Complainants Position paper were most of his Daily
Time Record that he was able to keep;
7. As to the allegation that Complainant did not inform Respondents of
his absence, to reiterate, Complainant called several times to inform
his absences and provided evidence that his absence was for a valid
cause;

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed unto this
Honorable Office that the judgment be rendered declaring the
dismissal of the herein complainant as ILLEGAL and ordering
2

the respondents to PAY the above money claims to the

complainant.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are
likewise most respectfully prayed for.

Manila for Quezon City, 6 January 2015.

Department of Justice
PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Manila District Office
th
4 Floor Godino Building
350 A. Villegas St., Ermita, Manila
Tel No. 400-9755
By:

Atty. DYANNE O. JOAQUIN

IBP NO. 957914, January 5, 2015
Roll of Attorney No. 59347
Email Add: attydyannejoaquin@gmail.com
MCLE Compliance No. IV 0011639