Anda di halaman 1dari 8

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

Regional Arbitration Branch IV
2 Floor Hectan Commercial Building

Halang, Calamba City



- versus - NLRC Case No. RAB-IV-01-




NLRC Case No. RAB-IV-01-



COME NOW Appellant-Respondent, by counsel, unto this Honorable

Commission, most respectfully state, thus:

1. On October 12, 2018, appellant-respondent received a

copy, through its authorized representative APSSAT
LAW OFFICE and ASSOCIATES, of the subject Decision
of the Hon. Labor Arbiter Dana M. Castillon in NLRC
Case No. RABIV-01-00203-18-I entitled Arvin Catahay
and Elpidio Bentir v Commuter Carrier Innovation Inc.
And/or Demetrio Pagkanlungan Jr.

2. Thus, appellant-respondent has until October 29, 2018

within which to file its Appeal and Memorandum of

3. Appellant-respondent most respectfully appeals the

Decision of the Hon. Castillon to the Honorable
Commission and submit the instant Memorandum of

4. In his Decision, the Hon. Castillon ruled, to wit:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered

1. declaring the dismissal of Complainants Arvin Catahay and Elpidio
Bentir as illegal. 2. Respondent Commuter Carrier Innovation Inc is
ordered to pay their separation pay with full backwages in the total
amount 390,618.99. 3.Dismising the Complaint of Gerry Tanaleon for
lack of merit. 4. Ordering Respondent to pay ten percent 10% of the
total award as attorney’s fees.”

The Hon. Castillon committed grave abuse of discretion in

rendering the above decision and committed serious errors in
the findings of facts which, if not corrected, would cause grave
or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant-respondent as
discussed in the Assignment of Errors and Arguments below:


5. The Hon. Castillon committed grave abuse of discretion

in rendering the above decision and committed serious
errors in the findings of facts in finding that:

a. Complainants-appellees were illegally dismissed.

b. Complainants are entitled to separation pay and full



Complainants-appellees were NOT illegally dismissed.

6. With all due respect, it was serious error for the Hon.
Castillon to have found that appellees-complainants were
illegally dismissed. Appellees-complainants could not
have been illegally dismissed because it must be noted
from the facts that they were given the opportunity to
explain and defend their side; provided them with the
requisite due process. First, Complainants were given a
Notice to Explain, citing the grounds for their dismissal or
termination; Second, they were given an opportunity to
explain their side and present their defenses in writing.
Lastly, it was upon receipt of the Complainant’s
Explanation that the Respondent Company decided to
terminate their employment based on the grounds
established to justify their termination;

7. Sometime in August of 2017, two concerned persons

residing inside the CCI garage compound - the common
law wife of Mr. Bernardo Baldado (one of company
drivers) – particularly, Ms. Mishell Garque ("Ms.
Garque", for brevity) and Angelito Mislang (Mislang, for
brevity), the company mechanic living inside the
company premises, reported to the management two
incidents involving Catahay and Bentir with another
driver of CCI, Mr. Noel Marbella (“Marbella”, for brevity)
– and Ms. Menelyn Saguete (“Ms. Lyn, for brevity), the
common law wife of Radino Peradilla (one of company
drivers), reported the same incident. She also personally
saw with Ms. Garque, the siphoning of diesel from the
CCI buses at the company compound by Bentir and

8. Ms. Garque narrated that she personally witnessed

Complainant Catahay taking company properties from
the warehouse “bodega” of the Company. In her affidavit
she stated that she saw Catahay bringing out company
properties one by one. She mentioned that Catahay was
placing them in a sack, and hauling them in a company
vehicle which he drove and brought home to his former
residence outside of the Respondent Company CCI
garage. She remembered that Catahay took the following
Company properties, to wit:

“Nilabas niya ang (sako-sako) humigit kumulang mga tatlong

sako. Makikita sa taas na naglalaman ng mga kawad ng kuryente
("wire") at mga bakal ang mga sako. Na kasama ng mga sakong
wire, inilabas at isinakay din ni Arvin Catahay ang mga humigit
kumulang, apat na maliliit nakahoy, apat na bakal na upuan at
mono-block na upuan at isinara na niya ang bodega. Pagkatapos
ay isinakay niya ito sa KIA “Bonggo” van, isang sasakyang
pagmamay-ari ng Kumpanya ("Sasakyan") na kanya ng
ginagamit sa service niya.”

The Sinumpaang Salaysay of Michelle Garque, Menelyn Saguete and

Angelito Mislang are hereto attached as ANNEX “D ”, ANNEX“E ”,
ANNEX “F” respectively and made an integral part hereof;

9. Ms. Garque also narrated in a separate affidavit that

she saw Complainant Edgar Bentir siphoning diesel
from the bus(es) of the Company. She stated in her
affidavit that:
“Si Edgar Bentir hawak hawak ang hose na nakapasok sa tangke
(gasulinahan) ng bus, at nakapapaloob sa isang limang litro na
container. Habang si Noel Marbella ang nagsisilbing taga-masid.
Si Noel Marbella din ang pumunta sa iba pang bus nanakaparada
sa loob ng garahe, gamit ang isa pang hose at nag sip sip para sa
dala pa nilang tatlong (3) container;”

The SinumpaangSalaysay of Michelle Garque against Bentir is

hereto attached as ANNEX “G” and made an integral part hereof;

10. Thereafter, upon learning of the same, and a subsequent

conduct of proper verification, the First notice to Eplain
was furnished to Catahay and Bentir in which both of
them answered. A second Notice to Explain was provided
Catahay, Bentir, this time, containing copies of the
Sinumpaang Salaysay of the witnesses attached therein
for their information.
11. After careful deliberation of the Respondent Company of
the evidence on hand and Affidavits of various employees
of the said unlawful acts - the Respondent was convinced
that there is probable cause to terminate the
Complainants as employees of the Corporation;
12. After the incident, in which the company discovered
through the reports made by the witnesses and
corroborated by Angelito Mislang, the company
mechanic, who also executed an affidavit, the Respondent
Company through Demetrio Pagkanlungang Jr. decided
to file a criminal complaint for Qualified against
Complainants Arvin Catahay and Elpidio (Edgar)Bentir
before the Department of Justice Sta. Rosa Laguna;
13. The Honorable Prosecutor of Sta. Rosa Laguna issued a
Resolution finding probable cause against both
Complainants Catahay and Bentir.
A copy of the Resolutions against the Complainants are also hereto
attached as ANNEX “” and ANNEX “ “ made an integral part hereof
Complainants are entitled to separation pay and full backwages.

15. Because the complainants-appellees were never dismissed, there

could be no occasion for any illegal dismissal.

16. And there being no illegal dismissal, they are not entitled to any
separation pay and full backwages.


WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that

the ruling of the Hon. Castillon:

a. Declaring complainants' dismissal as illegal be reversed and set


b. Holding that Respondent Commuter Carrier Innovation Inc.

ordered to pay their separation pay with full backwages in the
total amount 390,618.99 be reversed and set aide.

Furthermore, the Complaint by complainants-appellees should be

dismissed for being without any factual or legal basis.

All other relief just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed

Quezon City. October, 2018.

APSSaT Law Office & Associates

Counsel for Appellant-Respondent
6F Ricogen Bldg., Aguirre Street,
San Lorenzo Village, Makati City
Email address:
Tel. No. 504-8465
PTR. NO. 7263227; 1-10-2018; Marikina
IBP No. 025794; 1-10-2018; Rizal
Roll No. 62637
MCLE Compliance No. V-0017012


I, DEMETRIO B. PAGKANLUNGAN JR., of legal age, after having

been duly sworn in accordance with law, depose and state that:

1. I am the Respondent in the above-stated case;

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

3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and
correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of
documents and records in my possession;

4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the

same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency;

5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is

pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal
or agency;

6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been

filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to this Honorable Court.