Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. III
City of San Fernando, Pampanga

MIGUEL JADE V. GARCIA, ET., AL.

Complainant/s,

-versus- NLRC Case No. RAB III-03-29119-19

GBS SAFETY EQUIPMENT TRADING CO.

AND MR. EDISON CHANG - OWNER,
Respondent/s.

X---------------------------------------------------X

REJOINDER

RESPONDENTS, through its President Mr. EDISON CHAN, by way of

rejoinder respectfully states:

Complainant’s reply is just an iteration of his Position Paper that they

are illegally dismissed and entitled to their monetary claims. All allegations
of the complainants are self-serving and without any proof whatsoever.
Such statements are unwarranted and without basis in fact and in law.

Nonetheless, respondents will supplement its arguments and

discussions in their Position Paper and Reply to dispute the claims of the
complainants.

Complainant’s allegations are without

any basis nor corroborated by any
evidence to substantiate the same
 1. Complainants in their Position Paper and Reply iterates that
they are indeed dismissed by herein Respondents. However, such
averments are misplaced, due to the fact that no evidence whatsoever was
presented by the complainants in order to corroborate their own self-
serving allegations.

2. Complainant’s averred in their Position Paper and Reply that

they are dismissed by herein respondent when the latter’s wife expressly
said “Hindi na kami magrerenew ng trabaho” is completely based on their
own imagination.

3. Complainant’s allegations are not so detailed and appear

incredible if not downright puny. An analysis of their statements shows that
their own conclusion that they are indeed illegally dismissed by herein
Respondents was on the basis of their own suppositions, conjectures, and
surmises.

4. They could not satisfactorily explain their allegation that they

were dismissed by respondent. The latter’s alleged words “Hindi na kami
magrerenew ng trabaho” do not jurisprudentially constitute nor clearly
establish an illegal dismissal case. Aside from these words, the
complainants could only venture to alleged instances in general and vague
terms.

5. As to the facts allegedly constituting the alleged illegal

dismissal advanced by complainants, after an objective analysis over their
assertions as stated in their respective Position Paper and Reply vis-a-vis to
the respondent’s pleadings and other supporting documents attached
thereto, it is found that these far outweigh the allegations of the
complainants.

The claim of illegal dismissal will

not prosper unless the existence
of dismissal per se is establish by
substantial evidence

1. Before the employer must bear the burden of proving that the
dismissal was legal, the employee must first establish by substantial
evidence the fact of his dismissal from service.1

1
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) v. Pulgar, 637 Phil. 244, 256 (2010).
 2. All the complainant’s narration and allegations are bereft of
any merit. Both Positon Paper and Reply only alleged facts that are not true
nor substantiated by any documentary proof. Sadly, to speak of, the same
was just a baseless claim of herein complainants.

3. The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of
proving it; thus, petitioners were burdened to prove their allegation that
respondents dismissed them from their employment. It must be stressed
that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive and convincing.
The rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal
cases finds no application here because the respondents deny having
dismissed the petitioners.2

4. It is worthy to note that the complainants based their alleged

illegal dismissal on the words of respondent’s wife who has no relation
whatsoever in the nature of their employment. Indeed, the complainants
never submitted nor presented any corroborating evidence to substantiate
their allegations.

5. No notice of dismissal ever existed to justify the complainants

claim that they were dismissed by herein respondent.

6. The CA ruled that petitioner Reyes was not able to prove by

substantial evidence the fact that he was illegally dismissed. After a review
of the records, this Court finds otherwise. It must be remembered that the
degree of proof in labor cases is less than that of criminal cases as in the
former; it is enough that substantial evidence is proven. As aptly found by
the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, petitioner was able to prove his dismissal
from service. As held by the NLRC:

In this case, the complainant sufficiently alleged the

surrounding circumstances of his dismissal. He was able to state,
with the required particularities how he was terminated from his
employment. He stated in detail that on January 19, 2012, he was
not able to report for work early due to his son's illness. He also
alleged that respondent Co Say called him and angrily told him not
to report for work anymore and that they will have to talk in a
week's time. During their meeting held at Starbucks Waltermart,
the complainant was detailed enough when he recounted how
respondent Co Say reiterated that he can no longer return to his
job and even sought his resignation which he refused. While the
allegations of the complainant may not be taken as gospel truths
at this point, the complainant was able to establish that he was
dismissed from his employment contrary to the denials of the
2
Machica v. Roosevelt Service Center,
 respondents. Thus, it is now incumbent upon the respondents to
prove that the complainant was validly dismissed from his job in
the light of the detailed and straightforward narration of the
complainant.3

7. Verbal notice of termination can hardly be considered as valid

or legal. To constitute valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must
concur: (1) the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause; and (2) the
employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend
himself.4

8. In justifying that such verbal command not to report for work

from respondent Global's Vice-President for Operations Co Say as not
enough to be construed as overt acts of dismissal, the CA cited the case of
Noblejas v. Italian Maritime Academy Phils., Jnc. 735 Phil. 713 (2014). In the
said case, an employee filed an illegal dismissal case after the secretary of
the company's Managing Director told him, "No, you better pack up all your
things now and go, you are now dismissed and you are no longer part of
this office - clearly, you are terminated from this day on." This Court then
ruled in that case that there was no dismissal to speak of because the
secretary's words were not enough to be construed as overt acts of
dismissal. Be that as it may, the factual antecedents of that case is different
in this case. In the present case, the one who verbally directed petitioner to
no longer report for work was his immediate or direct supervisor, the Vice-
President for Operations, who has the capacity and authority to terminate
petitioner's services, while in Noblejas, the one who gave the instruction
was merely the secretary of the company's Managing Director. Hence, in
Noblejas, this Court found it necessary that the employee should have
clarified the statement of the secretary from his superiors before the same
employee instituted an illegal dismissal case. In the present case, Co Say's
verbal instruction, being petitioner Reyes' immediate supervisor, was
authoritative, therefore, petitioner Reyes was not amiss in thinking that his
employment has indeed already been terminated.5

9. “It is a basic rule of evidence that each party must prove his
affirmative allegation.”6 If he claims a right granted by law, he must prove
his claim by competent evidence, relying on the strength of his own
evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his opponent. The test for
determining on whom the burden of proof lies is found in the result of an
inquiry as to which party would be successful if no evidence of such matters
were given.

3
ALLAN JOHN UY REYES v. GLOBAL BEER BELOW ZERO, INC., G.R. No. 222816, October 4, 2017
4
Nacague v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., 641 Phil. 377, 385 (2010).
5
ALLAN JOHN UY REYES v. GLOBAL BEER BELOW ZERO, INC., G.R. No. 222816, October 4, 2017
6
Lopez v. Bodega City (Video-Disco Kitchen of the Phils.) and/or Torres-Yap, 558 Phil. 666, 673 (2007).
 10. In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the
employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause.
However, before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an employer-
employee relationship must first be established. Thus, in filing a complaint
before the LA for illegal dismissal, based on the premise that he was an
employee of respondents, it is incumbent upon petitioner to prove the
employer-employee relationship by substantial evidence.7

11. Before the employer must bear the burden of proving that the
dismissal was legal, the employee must first establish by substantial
evidence the fact of his dismissal from service.8

12. It is a basic rule of evidence that each party must prove his
affirmative allegation.9

13. If he claims a right granted by law, he must prove his claim by

competent evidence, relying on the strength of his own evidence and not
upon the weakness of that of his opponent. The test for determining on
whom the burden of proof lies is found in the result of an inquiry as to
which party would be successful if no evidence of such matters were given.
In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to
prove that its dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause. However,
before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an employer-employee
relationship must first be established. Thus, in filing a complaint before the
LA for illegal dismissal, based on the premise that he was an employee of
respondents, it is incumbent upon petitioner to prove the employer-
employee relationship by substantial evidence.10

14. The records are bereft of any indication that complainants

were prevented from returning to work or otherwise deprived of any work
assignment by respondents.

15. In Abad v. Roselle Cinema, G.R. No. 141371, March 24, 2006,
the Supreme Court ruled that the substantial evidence proffered by the
employer that it had not terminated the employee should not be ignored
on the pretext that the employee would not have filed the complaint for
illegal dismissal if he had not really been dismissed. We held that such non
sequitur reasoning cannot take the place of the evidence of both the
employer and the employee.

7
JESUS G. REYES v. GLAUCOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC., G.R. No. 189255, June 17, 2015.
8
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) v. Pulgar, 637 Phil. 244, 256 (2010)
9
Lopez v. Bodega City (Video-Disco Kitchen of the Phils.) and/or Torres-Yap, 558 Phil. 666, 673 (2007).
10
JESUS G. REYES v. GLAUCOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC., G.R. No. 189255, June 17, 2015.
 16. It is crystal clear from the Position Paper and Reply submitted
by the complainants that their allegations are just based on their
conjectures, surmises and suppositions. No documentary proof was ever
submitted by the complainants that they were indeed dismissed by the
respondents. All their allegations are clearly considered as hearsay.

17. We held that the law and jurisprudence guarantee security of

tenure to every employee. However, in protecting the rights of the workers,
the law does not authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the
employer. Social justice does not mean that every labor dispute shall
automatically be decided in favor of labor. Thus, the Constitution and the
law equally recognize the employer’s right and prerogative to manage its
operation according to reasonable standards and norms of fair play. 11

18. It is settled that the law serves to equalize the unequal. The
labor force is a special class that is constitutionally protected because of the
inequality between capital and labor. This constitutional protection
presupposes that the labor force is weak. However, the level of protection
to labor should vary from case to case; otherwise, the state might appear to
be too paternalistic in affording protection to labor.12

19. As a final point, it bears to reiterate that while the Constitution

is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the
working class, it should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be
automatically decided in favor of labor. Management also has its rights
which are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair
play. Out of its concern for the less privileged in life, the Court has inclined,
more often than not, toward the worker and upheld his cause in his
conflicts with the employer. Such favoritism, however, has not blinded the
Court to the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be
dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable law and
doctrine.13

11
Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v. Ramonchito T. Alcon and Joann S. Papa, G.R. No.
194884, October 22, 2014, citing Mercury Drug Corporation v. NLRC, 258 Phil. 384, 391 (1989).
12
Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Arlene S Espiritu, G.R. Nos. 204944-45, December 3, 2014.
13
Javier v. Fly Ace Corporation, G.R. No. 192558, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 382, 399-400.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

that, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Fairness, after a careful and
meticulous evaluation of the facts and evidence adduced by herein
Respondents, the Honorable Office decide this case in their favor by
DISMISSING the complaint for utter lack of merit.

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

Respectfully submitted. City of San Fernando, Pampanga, Philippines, June

10, 2019.

EDISON CHAN
President, GBS
Respondents