Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

Regional Arbitration Branch No. II
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

EUSEBIO DE LA CRUZ YAGO,

Complainant,

-versus-
ALVIN MABBORANG MALLILLIN,
Respondent.
x---------------------------- x

APPEAL MEMORANDUM

TO THIS HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

(NLRC), complainant-appellant, through the undersigned counsel most
respectfully state:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Complainant was hired as a farm worker by the respondent sometime in

the year 2014. As such, he was tasked to till the farmland owned by
respondent and received as compensation a 15% of the total harvest every
cropping which happens twice a year. Every cropping he receives at least 30
sacks of wet palay which approximately costs P35,000.00.

To ease his farm works, he and his family rented the small house owned
by respondent near the farm which he tills, for a rental fee of P700.00 per
month. In September 2017, after they partially completed the construction of
their small house, complainant and his family transferred thereto and left their
rented house. It is true that they voluntarily left their rented house but the
reason was that because of their newly constructed abode.

After they transferred to their own house, perhaps the respondent

resented. When complainant gave the harvest share of the respondent in
September 2017, the latter told him not to cultivate his land anymore. He was
even surprised when respondent immediately hired another person to perform
his previous tasks. He was terminated sans any just or authorized cause and
without due notice required under the law.

The respondent on the other hand claimed that complainant was not his
employee, rather he was his tenant. He also supposed that complainant
voluntarily left their rented house because of his three months unpaid rental
fee and the P375.00 allegedly representing complainant’s debt in their sari-sari
store.
 Notably, respondent did not attached substantial evidence to support his
claim that complainant have a back rental for three months and debt
amounting to P375.00 in her sari-sari store.

During the period of mandatory conciliation conducted between the

parties, respondent did not stop in harassing the complainant and his family.
He filed criminal cases against complainant when he found out that the latter
filed this labor case against him. This is oppression to labor and a way to
mislead the decision of the Honorable Office. The prosecution however did not
believe in the make stories of herein respondent and did not hesitate in
dismissing the criminal case filed against complainants.

Following the position paper and reply by the respective parties, the
Labor Arbiter issued a Decision dated October 18, 2018 the dispositive portion
of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, JUDGMENT is hereby

rendered declaring that complainant was neither illegally dismissed nor
abandoned his work. As such, the above entitled case is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit.

So ordered.”

TIMELINESS

This is an appeal on the October 18, 2018 Decision of the Honorable

Labor Arbiter, Regional Arbitration Branch No. 02, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
which was received by the respondent on October 23, 2018. The ten (10) day
period within which to file this appeal expires on November 03, 2018 which
falls on a Saturday. The appeal thus will expire on November 05, 2018 or the
next working day, hence its timeliness.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

1. Complainant humbly believes that the Honorable Labor Arbiter, with all
due respect, erred in NOT holding that the complainant was illegally
dismissed.

2. The Honorable Labor Arbiter, with all due respect, erred in NOT holding
that the complainant was entitled to moral and exemplary damages,
separation pay, backwages, service incentive leave and attorney’s fees.

ARGUMENTS

ILLEGAL DISMISSAL
 It is respectfully submitted that the Honorable Labor Arbiter erred in
NOT holding that complainant was illegally dismissed. The Honorable Labor
Arbiter opined her decision based on the bare allegations of the respondent
that complainant voluntarily left the premises of the respondent due to his
back rental and debt at respondent’s sari-sari store. There is nothing in the
records to prove his back rentals and debt at the sari-sari store except the bare
allegations of the respondent.

Substantial evidence is defined as that amount of relevant

evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion.1

In fact, the respondent did not, at least, show effort that he made
demand to pay nor vacate to complainant. The truth of the matter was that
complainant left the respondent’s premises because of their newly constructed
house. Respondent could have offered additional proof to corroborate his false
allegations against complainant.

In determining whether an employee’s dismissal had been

legal, the inquiry focuses on whether the dismissal violated his right
to substantial and procedural due process. An employee’s right not
to be dismissed without just or authorized cause as provided by
law, is covered by his right to substantial due process. Compliance
with procedure provided in the Labor Code, on the other hand,
constitutes the procedural due process right of an employee.2

In this case, complainant stands firm in his claim that he was

surprisingly informed by employer respondent to stop in cultivating his land,
after the former delivered the harvest sometime in September 2017. After his
termination, respondent hired another person to till the same land.
Respondent’s neighbor could attest and will support complainant’s claims.

Notably, the act of respondent in summarily dismissing complainant did

not conform, in any way, to the procedural due process requirements embodied
in Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, viz:

RULE XIV Termination of Employment

SECTION 1. Security of tenure and due process. — No workers shall

be dismissed except for a just or authorized cause provided by law and
after due process.

SECTION 2. Notice of dismissal.— Any employer who seeks to

dismiss a worker shall furnish him a written notice stating the particular
acts or omission constituting the grounds for his dismissal. In cases of
abandonment of work, the notice shall be served at the worker's last
known address.

1 Barros v. National Labor Relations Commission, 373 Phil. 635, 641 (1999), citing Section 5, Rule
133 of the Rules of Court.
2 See Deoferio v. Intel Technology Philippines Inc., G.R. No. 202996, June 18, 2014;
SEPARATION PAY AND BACKWAGES

Finding that complainant was illegally dismissed, he is then entitled to

separation pay and back wages as mandated by law.

Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines3 is instructive, to

wit:

xxx

Thus, an illegally dismissed employee is

entitled to two reliefs: backwages and
reinstatement. The two reliefs provided are separate
and distinct. In instances where reinstatement is no
longer feasible because of strained relations between
the employee and the employer, separation pay is
granted. In effect, an illegally dismissed employee is
entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or separation
pay if reinstatement is no longer viable, and
backwages.

The normal consequences of respondents

illegal dismissal, then, are reinstatement without
loss of seniority rights, and payment of
backwages computed from the time compensation
was withheld up to the date of actual
reinstatement. Where reinstatement is no longer
viable as an option, separation pay equivalent to
one (1) month salary for every year of service
should be awarded as an alternative. The
payment of separation pay is in addition to
payment of backwages. (emphasis, italics and
underscoring supplied).

MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

Anent the prayer for moral and exemplary damages, the act of the
respondent in instantly dismissing the complainant sans the due process as
required by law, manifests bad faith. Also the counter filing of the respondent
of baseless criminal offenses against the complainant only to level the labor
case filed by the latter is oppression to labor which should not be tolerated and
the actor must be punished.

We have hereto attached as Annex “A” a copy of the resolution issued by

the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor dismissing the criminal case filed by
herein respondent against the complainant.

Moral damages are recoverable when the dismissal of an employee

is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor,
or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs or public

3 G.R. No. 178524, January 30, 2009.

 policy. Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are recoverable when the
dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner.4

Furthermore, the respondent immediately replaced the complainant from

his post when he hired another person to cultivate the land (refer to Annex A,
hereto attached).

ATTORNEY’S FEES

Onto the award of attorney’s fees, the Supreme Court, in a plethora of

cases, upholds the awarding of Attorney’s Fees, thus:

“Settled is the rule that in actions for recovery of wages, or where an

employee was forced to litigate and, thus, incur expenses to protect
his rights and interests, a monetary award by way of attorney's fees
is justifiable under Article Ill of the Labor Code; Section 8, Rule VIII,
Book III of its Implementing Rules; and paragraph 7, Article 208 of
the Civil Code. The award of attorney's fees is proper, and there
need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in
bad faith when it withheld the wages. There need only be a showing
that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly.” 5

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed of

the Honorable Commission to render judgment reversing the October 18, 2018
decision of the Honorable Labor Arbiter and to issue another declaring the
complainant to be illegally dismissed, hence entitled to all his monetary claims
as contained in his position paper.

Other relief and remedies just and equitable in the premise are likewise
prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Copy furnished:

ATTY. MACPAUL B. SORIANO

2nd Floor, Soriano Bldg.
Luna St., Tuguegarao City

ALVIN MABBORANG MALLILLIN

Lanna, Solana, Cagayan

EXPLANATION

The foregoing pleading was filed to the Honourable Labor Arbiter by

personal service and served on the respondent by registered mail due to
distance and manpower constraints.

4 Kay Products Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 502 Phil. 783, 798 (2005); Norkis Trading Co., Inc. v.
NLRC, 504 Phil. 709, 719-720 (2005).
5 Lorenzo T. Tangga-an v. Pidlippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., Universe Tankship Delaware

LLC, and Carlos c. Salinas,G.R. No. 180636, March 13, 2013