Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
Quezon City

_____________________,
Complainant,

- versus - _____________________

_____________________.,
Respondents,
x-----------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
RESPONDENTS, through the undersigned authorized representative,
and unto this Honorable Office, respectfully submit this Position Paper as
follows:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

This case raises anew the well-settled question of whether an

employer may be held liable for the series of cause of action particularly
more on money claims filed by the former security officer, who had already
received the just and right payment after he resigned from the post and who
failed to perform and exercise his outmost duty to the satisfaction of the
client.

In the case at bar, complainant was engaged as a Security Personnel to

a different client of the respondents. He was informed of the standards
required for Security Officer as well as the corresponding salary/wages that
would fit his job at the time of his employment. This was very clear on the
fact that his chosen field and agency were discussed to him. The crux of the
issue when complainant filed an express resignation from his post and
demanded the herein respondent for the payment of his cash bond and 13 th
month pay. Respondent duly complied and give to the herein complainant
what is right and due to him. However, complainant, due to his
dissatisfaction and contentment to his own fault, stubborn, refusal and
deliberate failure to honor despite receipt of the amount paid preempted the
whole process by refilling of this instant case. Thus, the respondents was
surprised by the action made of the complainant.

1
 In the face of this reality, it may be worthwhile to inquire whether or
not it is fair and just for the respondent company to be held liable for the
unfounded reliefs prayed for in the complaint.

The respondents respectfully submit that on the basis of the

substantial evidence on record establishing without doubt that complainant
was properly paid what is due and right to him and he undeniably received
by him, the instant complaint must fail.

THE PARTIES

1. Respondent _____________________ is a domestic

corporation duly organized and existing under the Philippine Laws and with
office address at _____________________ while individual respondents
_____________________, of legal age, Filipino, and currently the
_____________ of respondent _____________________, of legal age,
Filipino, and currently the ________________ of respondent La Guardia,
and, where they may be served with summons and other process of this
Honorable Office;

2. Complainant _____________________, where he may be

served with summons and other process of this Honorable Office.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PERTINENT FACTS

1. It was on August 2015 to June 2016 when complainant

Sentorias was employed with respondent _____________________;

2. That during the employment of complainant Sentorias with

_____________________, he was assigned to various clients and was
receiving salary that he enjoyed and benefited as evidence of his continues
and long service to herein respondent.

2. The last detailed order where the Complainant was assigned

and designated as one of the Security officer was at Napolcom Central
Office located in Quezon City;

3. Thereafter, last June 14, 2016, complainant filed his resignation

from the herein respondent employer and requested for the immediate
release of the 13th month pay and cash bond. Said resignation letter is hereto
attached and marked as ANNEX “1-A” and made an integral part hereof;

2
 4. Complainant did receive his Cash bond for Napolcom post last
July 4, 2016. Said check voucher is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX
“1-B” and made an integral part hereof;

5. It is worthy to note, that Complainant

_____________________ again applied to the herein respondent
_____________________and was eventually rehired last January 2017;
complainant was assigned at Westgate Plaza, Quezon City from January
2017 to March 2017;

6. Due to the end of contract between Westgate Plaza and the

herein respondent company, complainant Sentorias was then reassigned to
another client _____________________ property from June 1-15, 2017. In
his last assignment, complainant _____________________ was removed
from the detailed order list of the security post due to non-compliance of the
proper procedure particularly non-wearing of uniform (type A).

7. That from the preceding facts alone it can easily glance that the
herein complainant _____________________ was will compensated and is
enjoying the benefits that is due and right to him. Where complainant was
not satisfied in contradiction to his cause of action in his complaint,
complainant would not reapply to the herein respondent company.

5. That last May 2017, to the dismay of the herein respondent,

complainant _____________________a Labor Case before the SENA
docketed case no. 08-11503-17 claiming among others the money claims
which he alleged did not received to the herein respondent.

6. Respondent _____________________, in the exercise of his

faithful obligation to give what is due and right to the herein complainant
Sentorias issued immediately the corresponding Check voucher amounting
to P 6,982.66, in which complainant without objection and to his satisfaction
received the said check voucher. Said check voucher is hereto attached and
marked as ANNEX “1-C” and made an integral part hereof;

7. That last May 18, 2017, said Labor Case was then terminated
and was amicably settled, wherein Complainant _____________________
executed an affidavit of desistance stating among others, that he will no
longer file any money claims to the herein respondent La Guardia. Said
affidavit of desistance is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX “1-D” and
made an integral part hereof;

8. In fact, complainant _____________________ to his full

satisfaction of the settlement received he executed personally an affidavit of
Quitclaim and Release stating among others, “I do hereby release and
discharge aforesaid company La Guardia and its officer/s, person/s from
any money claim by way of unpaid wages, separation pay, overtime pay or
otherwise, as may due to me in connection with my past employment with
3
the aforementioned company, its officers/persons.xxx”. Said affidavit of d
Quitclaim and Release is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX “1-E” and
made an integral part hereof;

8. Believing in good faith, respondent was made to believe that

complainant will no longer file any money claims against the herein
respondent was absorbed. Complainant after receiving the check voucher
issued by the herein respondent did then again file another Labor Case
docketed case no. 08-11503-17. Complainant again sued the herein
respondent and claiming among others money claims. Said complaint is
hereto attached and marked as ANNEX “1-F” and made an integral part
hereof;

9. Respondent _____________________, was surprised by the

actuations of the herein complainant _____________________. After
complainant _____________________ received the check voucher that was
due to him, the latter complainant again filed a labor case and trying to
extort the herein respondent to another money claim for the reason among
others, that the herein respondent is so lenient to its employee and would
immediately succumb to the relief ask provided that is just and legal;

10. Respondent La Guardia because of the capricious money claims

of the herein complainant did not act and succumb to the relief asked by the
herein complainant Sentorias, that eventually resulted to failure of mediation
and elevated the case to labor arbitration;

11. This honorable office issued a failure of mediation and ordered

both parties to submit position paper.

Suffice to mention that the complaint of money claims of

Complainant Sentorias is false and misleading and could affect the
truthfulness and veracity of all the allegations made in his complaint.

Nevertheless, the herein authorized representative of the

respondents submit this position paper to refute the allegations in the
complaint filed by complainant Sentorias.

ISSUES

UNDER PAYMENT-SALARY/WAGES, NON-PAYMENT-OVERTIME

PAY, NON PAYMENT-HOLIDAY PAY, NON-PAYMENT-HOLIDAY
PREMIUM, NON-PAYMENT-REST DAY PREMIUM, NON-PAYMENT-
SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE, NON-PAYMENT -13TH MONTH PAY,
NON-PAYMENT-ECOLA, NON-PAYMENT-NIGHT SHIFT
DIFFERENTIAL, ATTORNEYS FEES, OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION –
FROM POST DUTIES NO VIOLATION CASH BOND.

4
 DISCUSSIONS

THERE WAS NO UNDERPAYMENT-

SALARY WAGES and NON PAYMENT OF E
COLA - TO SPEAK OF. THE
COMPLAINANT CATEGORICALLY
ADMITTED AND DISCLOSES IN HIS
COMPLAINT THAT HE IS RECEIVING A
SALARY OF P 14,000.00. THUS,
RESPONDENT LA GUARDIA DID NOT IN
ANY WAY COMMIT VIOLATION OF THE
BASIC STANDARD LAW ON WAGES.
RESPONDENT FAITHFULLY PAID WHAT IS
RIGHT AND DUE TO THE COMPLAINANT
BASED ON THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
APPEARING ON THE RECORDS.

Basic in the context of the complainant complain that he is receiving a

salary of P 14,000.00 could not be presumed that he was deliberate denied
his right to minimum wage as mandated by law. To cast the doubt as to the
basic salary of the herein respondent the P 14,000.00 is within the ambit of
the daily wage of P 491.00/day :

1. Respondent most respectfully submit to this honorable body,

that there is no need to stretch one’s imagination to realize that the
allegation made by the herein respondent is in contradiction to what
he expressly admitted in his complaint. It is of no moment that since
neither complainant nor respondent has presented any evidence on the
alleged cause of action of underpayment-salary/wages, the evidence
and the complaint presented by the herein complainant at the time of
the filing of this instant case is crystal clear a proof that he received
the legal and just salary as mandated by law. It is elementary that he
who makes an allegation is required to proved the same. While it is
true respondent did not present evidence on its allegation that
complainant is under payment, this instant case should not proceed on
the presumption that the complainant is underpaid;

In G.R. No. 82248 January 30, 1992

A presumption is defined as an inference as to the existence

of a fact not actually known, arising from its usual connection
with another which is known, 4 or a conjecture based on past
experience as to what course human affairs ordinarily take. It
is either a presumption juris, or of law, or a
presumption hominis, or of fact.

5
 …xxx..
.
2. That from the facts presented alone it can easily glance that the
herein complainant Sentorias was will compensated and is enjoying the
benefits that is due and right to him. Where complainant was not satisfied in
contradiction to his cause of action in his complaint, complainant would not
reapply to the herein respondent company.

3. Be that as it may, respondent is presenting the pay slips that the

complainants have received during the time of his employment with the
respondent corporation. As can be gleaned from the attached documents
complainant received everything that is due to them as employee to the
mandates of the salary minimum standard law. The attached payslips are
herein attached as follows and marked accordingly.

Cut Off Period No. of Work Amount E-COLA ANNEX

Days “”
01/1-15/2017 2.0 P 1,104.00 P 20.00 2-A
01/16-31/2017 17.5 P 7,900.10 P 175.00 2-B
02/1-15/2017 17.0 P 8,921.50 P 170.00 2-C
02/16-28/2017 14.0 P 6,968.10 P 140.00 2-D
05/16-31/2017 15.0 P 7,095.70 P 150.00 2-E
06/1-15/2017 4.0 P 2,350.00 P 40.00 2-F

From the above table and presentation of the complainant

payslip, it cannot be denied that the herein respondent faithfully paid the
herein complainant of what is due to him according the existing Minimum
Wage Law. The allegation of the complainant in his complaint for
underpayment is capricious and whimsical.

In G.R. No. 155034;

Moreover, absent any evidence to the contrary, good

faith must be presumed in this case. Entries in the payroll,
being entries in the course of business, enjoy the presumption
of regularity under Rule 130, Section 43 of the Rules of Court.
Hence, while as a general rule, the burden of proving payment
of monetary claims rests on the employer, when fraud is alleged
in the preparation of the payroll, the burden of evidence shifts
to the employee and it is incumbent upon him to adduce clear
and convincing evidence in support of his claim. Unfortunately,
petitioner’s bare assertions of fraud do not suffice to overcome
the disputable presumption of regularity. (May 22, 2008 PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. FRANCISCO
BLANCAFLOR, appellant.)

6
RESPONDENTS ARE NOT LIABLE TO PAY
AS TO COMPLAINT FOR NON-PAYMENT
(OVERTIME PAY, HOLIDAY PAY, HOLIDAY
PREMIUM, REST DAY PAY) --
IT IS CLEAR THAT COMPLAINANTT IS
ONLY FISHING AS TO THE COMPLAINT
HE MADE FOR SERIES OF MONEY
CLAIMS. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO
SHOW THAT COMPLAINANT ACTUALLY
RENDENRED AN EXCESS HOURS THAT
WHAT IS MANDATED TO HIM NOR THERE
WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HE IS
ENTITLED TO HOLIDAY PAY, HOLIDAY
PREMIUM AND REST DAY PAY.

The following provisions of the Labor Code is apropos:

Art. 84. Hours worked.

Hours worked shall include (a) all time during which an employee is
required to be on duty or to be at a prescribed workplace; and (b) all
time during which an employee is suffered or permitted to work.Rest
periods of short duration during working hours shall be counted as
hours worked.

Art. 86. Night shift differential.

Every employee shall be paid a night shift differential of not less than
ten percent (10%) of his regular wage for each hour of work
performed between ten o’clock in the evening and six o’clock in the
morning.

Art. 87. Overtime work.

Work may be performed beyond eight (8) hours a day provided that
the employee is paid for the overtime work, an additional
compensation equivalent to his regular wage plus at least twenty-five
percent (25%) thereof. Work performed beyond eight hours on a
holiday or rest day shall be paid an additional compensation
equivalent to the rate of the first eight hours on a holiday or rest day
plus at least thirty percent (30%) thereof.

Art. 94. Right to holiday pay.

1. Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular
holidays, except in retail and service establishments regularly
employing less than ten (10) workers;

7
2. The employer may require an employee to work on any holiday but
such employee shall be paid a compensation equivalent to twice his
regular rate; and

3. As used in this Article, "holiday" includes: New Year’s Day, Maundy

Thursday, Good Friday, the ninth of April, the first of May, the twelfth
of June, the fourth of July, the thirtieth of November, the twenty-fifth
and thirtieth of December and the day designated by law for holding a
general election.

The existence of clear and existing evidence does not appear on the
records. There was no records to show that complainant Sentorias actually
rendered excess hours that may warrant for overtime pay. In addition,
complainant Sentorias did not in any way present before this Honorable
Office records that would warrant the he actually rendered work on holiday,
holiday premium and during night shift, it is so respectfully submitted

In the case of Lilia P. Labanan vs. Forrest Hills Academy,

G.R. No. 172295 dated December 23,2008, it was ruled:

“xxx…As for petitioner’s claims for overtime pay, it

must be denied, for other than the uncorroborated
affidavits of her colleagues, there is no concrete proof
that she is entitled thereto.24 And so must her claim for
allowances, no proof to her entitlement thereto having
been presented…xxx”.

In fact, complainant Sentorias to his full satisfaction of the settlement

received he executed personally an affidavit of Quitclaim and Release
stating among others, “I do hereby release and discharge aforesaid company
La Guardia and its officer/s, person/s from any money claim by way of
unpaid wages, separation pay, overtime pay or otherwise, as may due to me
in connection with my past employment with the aforementioned company,
its officers/persons.xxx”. Said affidavit of d Quitclaim and Release is hereto
attached and marked as ANNEX “1-E” and made an integral part hereof;

From the facts of the case and in relation to the jurisprudential

doctrines on working conditions and rest periods, it is very clear that there
was no valid monetary claims to speak of.

RESPONDENTS ARE NOT LIABLE TO

PAY COMPLAINANT FOR
SEPARATION PAY AND SERVICE
INCENTIVE LEAVE.

8
 The following provisions of the Labor Code is apropos:

Art. 95. Right to service incentive leave.

1. Every employee who has rendered at least one year of service shall
be entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five days with pay.

2. This provision shall not apply to those who are already enjoying
the benefit herein provided, those enjoying vacation leave with pay
of at least five days and those employed in establishments
regularly employing less than ten employees or in establishments
exempted from granting this benefit by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment after considering the viability or financial condition
of such establishment.

3. The grant of benefit in excess of that provided herein shall not be

made a subject of arbitration or any court or administrative action.

In order to validly qualify for the service incentive leave the above
Labor Code provisions are clear. The records would show that the
employment records of the herein complainant was cut when he resigned last
June 2016. It was only when complainant was rehired last January 2017.

Respondents without being repetitive would like to implead the facts

presented for the employment history of the herein complainant:

1. It was on August 2015 to June 2016 when

complainant Sentorias was employed with respondent La
Guardia as Security Officer;

2. That during the employment of complainant

Sentorias with respondent La Guardia, he was assigned to
various clients and was receiving salary that he enjoyed and
benefited as evidence of his continues and long service to
herein respondent.

3. The last detailed order where the Complainant

was assigned and designated as one of the Security officer was
at Napolcom Central Office located in Quezon City;

4. Thereafter, last June 14, 2016, complainant filed

his resignation from the herein respondent employer and
requested for the immediate release of the 13th month pay and
cash bond. Said resignation letter is hereto attached and
marked as ANNEX “1-A” and made an integral part hereof;

9
 5. Complainant did received his Cash bond for
Napolcom post last July 4, 2016. Said check voucher is hereto
attached and marked as ANNEX “1-B” and made an integral
part hereof;

6. It is worthy to note, that Complainant Sentorias

again applied to the herein respondent La Guardia and was
eventually rehired last January 2017, complainant was
assigned at Westgate Plaza, Quezon City from January 2017 to
March 2017;

7. Due to the end of contract between Westgate

Plaza and the herein respondent company, complainant
Sentorias was then reassigned to another client Mr. Albert
Mata property from June 1-15, 2017. In his last assignment,
complainant Sentorias was removed from the detailed order
list of the security post due to non-compliance of the proper
procedure particularly non-wearing of uniform (type A).

The complainant Sentorias is not entitled to separation pay

considering that he was not illegally dismissed and terminated from work.
Complainant Sentorias faithfully and undeniably executed Quitclaim and
Release Affidavit, stating, “I do hereby release and discharge aforesaid
company La Guardia and its officer/s, person/s from any money claim by
way of unpaid wages, separation pay, overtime pay or otherwise, as may
due to me in connection with my past employment with the aforementioned
company, its officers/persons.xxx”.:

Since there was no illegal dismissal to speak of and the herein

complainant voluntary resigned from work it is clear that complainant is not
entitled to separation pay.

Since it was established that the complainant were not dismissed, he is

not entitled to receive separation pay. (Samson Alcantara, Philippine Labor
and Social Legislation, Annotated, Volume I, Revised (1992) Edition, page
632.) This is pursuant to Rule 1, Book VI, Section 7 of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended,
which provides as follows:

Rule I, Book VI, Section 7. Termination of employment by

employer.– The just causes for terminating the services of an employee shall
be those provided in Article 282 of the Code. The separation from work of
an employee for a just cause does not entitle him to the termination pay
provided in this Code, xxx" (underscoring supplied)16

In Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. NLRC and

Abucay, G.R. 80609, August 23, 1988, the Supreme Court said:

10
 “The policy of social justice is not intended to countenance
wrongdoings simply because it is committed by the
underprivileged. At best it may mitigate the penalty but it
certainly will not condone the offense. Compassion for the poor
is an imperative of every humane society but only when the
recipient is not a rascal claiming an undeserved privileged.
Social justice cannot be permitted to be refuge of scoundrels
any more than can equity be an impediment to the punishment
of the guilty…xxx

IT MAY BE CONCEDED THAT

COMPLAINANT SENTORIAS IS
ENTITLED TO HER LAST EARNED
SALARY, AND 13TH MONTH PAY.

Respondents does not negate complainant Sentorias entitlement to his

money claims in so far as it involves her last earned salary and 13th month
pay.

But, respondents does not also negate that complainat Sentorias

already received his last pay and 13th month pay. Said receipt of the money
claims was established in his Affidavit of Quitclaim and Release, to quote:

“I do hereby release and discharge aforesaid company

La Guardia and its officer/s, person/s from any money claim
by way of unpaid wages, separation pay, overtime pay or
otherwise, as may due to me in connection with my past
employment with the aforementioned company, its
officers/persons.xxx”

Said affidavit of Quitclaim and Released is hereto attached and

marked as ANNEX “1-E” and attached and marked is the Check Voucher
ANNEX “1-C” to made an integral part hereof

THERE WAS NO ILLEGAL LAY OFF (FROM

POST DUTIES NO VIOLATION CASH
BOND) TO SPEAK OF.

Due to the end of contract between Westgate Plaza and the herein
respondent company, complainant Sentorias was then reassigned to another
client Mr. Albert Mata property from June 1-15, 2017. In his last
assignment, complainant Sentorias was removed from the detailed order list
of the security post due to non-compliance of the proper procedure
particularly non-wearing of uniform (type A).

11
 The policy of the state is to assure the right of workers to “security of
tenure”. The guarantee is an act of social justice.

Where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may

be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe.
It is not only because of the law’s concern for working men. There is, in
addition, his family to consider. Unemployment brings untold hardships and
sorrows on those dependent on the wage-earner. The misery and pain
attendant on the loss of jobs then could be avoided if there be acceptance of
the view that under all circumstances of a case, the workers should not be
deprived of their means of livelihood. From the strictly juridical standpoint,
it cannot be too strongly, stressed that where a decision may be made to rest
on informed judgment rather stressed that where a decision may be made to
rest on informed judgment rather than rigid rules, all equities of the case
must be accorded their weight. Labor law determinations should not only
secundum rationem but also secundum caritatem.1 (Almira vs. B.F. Goodrich Phil.,
Inc., 58 SCRA 120)

When a person has no property, his job may possibly his only
possession or means of livelihood. Therefore, he should be protected against
any arbitrary deprivation of his job. Article 280 (now 279) of the Labor
Code has construed security of tenure as meaning that “the employer shall
not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when
authorized by” the Code. (Rance, et. al., vs. NLRC, GR No. 68147, June 30, 1988;
Offshore Industries, Inc. vs. NLRC, GR No. 83108, August 29, 1989; Century Textile
Mills, Inc. vs. NLRC, et. al., GR No. 77859, May 25, 1988).

The right of an employer to freely discharge his employees is subject

to regulation by the State, basically in the exercise of its paramount police
power. This is so because the preservation of the lives of the citizen is a
basic duty of the state, more vital than the preservation of corporate profits.
Employers should, therefore, respect and protect the rights of their
employees, which include the right to labor. Thus, where the employee’s
money claims was not in accordance with the legal process, as contemplated
by law, the cause of action for money claims should be held as ILLEGAL, as
in this case.

In the case at bar, the capricious, whimsical and unsupported

complaint for money claims against the herein respondents was a mere
subterfuge in circumventing-defeating respondents right to freely discharge
the legal and harmonious operation of security company. By established
jurisprudence, it is clear that complainant Sentorias abused his right and
filed series of money claim to extort the herein respondents, complainant
Sentorias believing that mere filing of Labor suites he can easily gained
monetary benefits against the respondents.

1
12
 The legality of the monetary claims constitutes a valid cause of
actions supported by substantive evidences, while the legality of the
actuations of the herein respondents against capricious money claims of the
complainant clearly indicated of defiance of the social justice mandated
under labor work force.

Substantive evidences for money claims, on the other hand, require

that a well-founded belief that the workers right was then violated, the
burden of proof lies to the complainant that his substantial right was then
violated.

Complainant cannot dispute the fact and even can conceded that
respondents has complied with both aspects of good faith and legality in
dealing and accepting the herein complainant as part of the security force,
despite the fact that complainant filed multiple labor cases for his own
benefits even without a valid and legal grounds – the good faith and legality
was validly shown in favor of the herein respondents. The previous
discussions attested this compliance.

In Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. NLRC and

Abucay, G.R. 80609, August 23, 1988, the Supreme Court said:

“The policy of social justice is not intended to countenance

wrongdoings simply because it is committed by the underprivileged.
At best it may mitigate the penalty but it certainly will not condone
the offense. Compassion for the poor is an imperative of every
humane society but only when the recipient is not a rascal claiming
an undeserved privileged. Social justice cannot be permitted to be
refuge of scoundrels any more than can equity be an impediment to
the punishment of the guilty…xxx

Thus, complainant Sentorias gravely committed a serious violation of

the basic fundamental rights under the labor law and social justice in filing
multiple money claims and is expressly explained above. In addition
capricious and whimsical complaint.

OTHER CLAIMS SHOULD BE DENIED

Likewise, complainant Sentorias is not entitled to Attorney’s Fees;

Complainant Sentorias claim for attorney’s fees should also fail because his
filing of the instant case was not intended to protect his interest. Respondent
did not do anything illegal toward Complainant Sentorias. Hence, he need
not protect himself from any acts of Respondent. As a corollary thereto,
there was no necessity for him to engage the services of a lawyer.

Under the Civil Code, Article 2208:

13
 In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered except:

xxxx

(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers,

laborers, and skilled workers;

(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and

employer’s liability laws;

xxxx

(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that
attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.

xxxx

COUNTERCLAIM

Considering that the above-entitled case filed by herein complainant is

wanting of any basis, both in fact and in law, and obviously unfounded and
intended to merely harass, annoy, and defame the respondents, it is but just,
that legal and attorney’s fees be awarded in favor of the respondents, who
have been constrained to undergo litigation to protect and enforce its rights
and interests. As held by the Honorable Court in the case of Enervida v. De
La Torre, 55 SCRA 339, “Attorney’s fees are recoverable in clearly
unfounded suits.”

Damages should also be awarded to the respondents.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Office

that the instant case be DISMISSED for utter lack of merit and to award
respondents, as and by way of attorney’s fees as well as the cost of this suit
and damages in the total amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
(P100,000.00) PESOS
.

Other reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City September 26, 2017.

14
 _____________________Respondent

_____________________
By:

_____________________Authorized Representative

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

I, _________________., of legal age, under oath do hereby depose

and state that:

1. I, one of the respondents in the above-entitled, Legal Officer,

and the authorized representative of respondent La Guardia in the above-
entitled case as per Secretary Certificate, attesting to the issuance of a Board
Resolution of my authority, as ANNEX “_____” ;

2. I have caused the preparation of this Position Paper;

15
 3. I have read the contents hereof and the allegations therein are
true and correct of my own personal knowledge and belief or based on the
authentic records;

4. That I have not commenced any other action or proceeding

involving the same issue in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals or
different divisions thereof, or any tribunal, body or agency and if we should
hereafter learn that any other similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before the same we undertake to promptly inform this Honorable
Court, the other courts and such other tribunal or agency of that fact within
five (5) days therefrom.

Further affiant sayeth naught.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this __ day

of September, 2017.

_____________________
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this __ day of

September 2017, affiant satisfactorily proven their respective identities
through their _______________________, that they are the same persons
who personally signed before me the foregoing and acknowledged that she
executed the same.

Doc. No. ___; NOTARY PUBLIC

Page No. ___;
Book No. ___;
Series of 2017

Copy Furnished:

CATALINO TAMAYO SENTORIAS

Complainant
No. 17 Marcos Hi-Way Brgy. Mayamot Antipolo Rizal

16