REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch IV
2/F Hectan Bldg., Brgy. Halang cor. Chipeco Avenue
Calamba City

AAA et.al.,
Complainant,

-- versus -- NLRC. CASE No. RAB IV

__________

ABCD TRAVEL and BBB,

Respondents.
X-----------------------------------------------X

REPLY
(To Complainant’s Position Paper)

RESPONDENTS, by undersigned counsel, unto this

Honorable Commission, by way of Reply to Respondents’
Position Paper dated 15 March 2015, most respectfully state:

1. Complainants claimed that a judgment should be

rendered in their favor because they were illegally dismissed
and that the proper procedure for dismissal was not
followed.

2. With due respect to the complainants, their bare

allegations do not change the fact that before respondent
could dismiss complainants on ground of abandonment, they
filed with the Honorable Labor Arbiter their complaint for
illegal dismissal.

DISCUSSION

3. Truth of the matter is that, at the expense of being

repetitious, the complainants were the ones who wronged
respondent ABCD

4. Complainant AAA has attached in her position

paper an identification card1 that she claims was issued by

1
Annex A of Complainant AAA’s Position Paper
Page 1 of 8
the Respondents on 12 August 2013 as proof of her
employment. This is utterly false.

5. The identification card that complainant attached

was issued by the Department of Tourism for the
accreditation of the Respondent ABCD as a travel and tours
agency. If said identification card was indeed issued to
complainant on 12 August 2013 how is it that its validity
period is for almost one year and eight months since the
expiry date of said identification card is 30/04/2015 (30 April
2015)? These just indicate how absurd the claims of
complainant are.

On Complainant AAA’s
alleged constructive dismissal

6. In her Position Paper Complainant AAA alleges:

“On 14 December 2014 respondent thru

BBB out of nowhere charged complainant of
stealing money for the company. In so much
anger, complainant was verbally informed
and without notice whatsoever that she was
already terminated from service by
respondent BBB. Complainant was even
threatened that respondent would cause her
arrest by the police authority. So complainant
did not report for work the following day.’’ 2
(Emphasis supplied)

Again, the untruthfulness of complainant AAA

knows no bounds. The truth of the matter is no such incident
took place on 14 December 2014. She further claim

“The following day, complainant

received a text message from the
respondent, asking her to report for work and
sign a document to the effect that the
document will prove that the complainant
AAA admitted stealing money in the
company. According to the respondent, said
agreement was for the purpose of mitigating
complainant’s liability to the company.
Complainant was further threatened that her

2
Paragraph 1 of Page 3 of Complainant AAA’s Position Paper dated 15 May 2015
Page 2 of 8
 failure to report would constrain them to ask
the police authority to arrest her.’’ 3 (Emphasis
supplied)

If Complainant was indeed terminated on 14

December 2014, she no longer had to “report to work” two
days after said date. Furthermore, the document
complainant AAA mentions was the instrument that FFF
prepared on 26 January 2015. FFF’s Sinumpaang Salaysay is
herein attached as Annex “1”.

7. The inconsistencies that Complainant AAA is by

her own weaving. She claims:

“What is absurd is the fact that if it is

true that the complainant AAA stole money
from the respondent, the latter was still
allowed to work in the company. Complainant
was forced not to report for work because
complainant was forced to execute an
affidavit to the effect that complainant AAA
stole money in the company where in truth
and in fact complainant did not do so.”
(Emphasis supplied)

By Complainant AAA’s own words, she was still

allowed to work in the company, thus she was not
terminated from service on 14 December 2014 as she
claims.

8. Granting for the sake of argument that

Complainant AAA was terminated on 14 December 2014,
this is totally disproved by the fact that she herself
represented herself as Respondent ABDC’s employee in
several instances.

9. The first of the said instances was on 24 January

2015 with Mr. EEE who is the Guidance Coordinator EFGH
Elementary School.4

3
Paragraph 2, Ibid.
4
Respondent has already submitted to the Honorable Commission Mr. EEE’s
Sinumpaang Salaysay relating Complainant AAA’s dealings and representation to
him as Annex “4” of its Position Paper.

Page 3 of 8
 10. Another instance that disproves Complainant
AAA’s alleged termination on 14 December 2014 was her
dealings with the Dean of Lyceum of the West. 5

11. In both instances, complainant AAA represented

herself as an employee of respondent ABCD and even signed
in its behalf and issued receipts.

On Complainant CCC’s
alleged illegal termination

12. Complainant CCC wishes to mislead the Honorable

Commission. He alleges

“On 26 of January 2015 complainant

inquired unto respondent BBB on the matter
of his said benefits the same with his
underpaid salary. Respondent then
immediately got angry, and informed
the complainant that he was already
terminated from work and was
forbidden to enter the respondent’s
premises. Respondent even shouted the
complainant, threatened him, and even
accused him of theft and some other
malicious imputation. Complainant then in
fear, left the company.”

The truth of the matter is that 26 January 2015 was

the day that the consequences of his and Complainant AAA’s
actions finally caught up with them. It was this day that BBB
asked about the transactions that both of the complainants
maneuvred for their own. It was in fact Complainant CCC
who raised his voice against the respondents.

13. On the same day, complainant CCC handed the

keys of the bus he drives to the GGG, husband of respondent
BBB, who at that time was totally unaware of what just
happened.

14. JJJ, another son of respondent BBB, later then saw

complainant CCC driving a public utility bus. He then learned
5
Respondent has attached as Annex “7” of its Position Paper the certification of Mr.
DDD that they hired a bus from respondent thru Complainant AAA on 12 February
2015.
Page 4 of 8
from other drivers that complainant CCC was telling other
drivers that he has left ABCD and that they should also do
the same since “pababagsakin ko din yan.” Attached herein
is JJJ’s Sinumpaang Salaysay as Annex “2”.

15. The Supreme Court has long stressed that “one

who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and the proof
should be clear, positive and convincing.”6 In the present
case aside from mere allegations, no evidence was proffered
by the complainants that they were dismissed from
employment. Not a single indication that complainants were
prevented from returning work or otherwise deprived of any
work assignment by the respondent may be attributed to the
respondents.

16. It must be stressed that there is no evidence

showing that complainants were actually dismissed by
respondent. What is actually involved herein is the informal
voluntary termination of employment by the complainant
employees.

17. Complainants after knowing that respondent has

discovered their modus left by their own accord.
Complainant CCC went driving for another bus company and
even told other drivers of ABCD to leave the travel agency.
Complainant AAA on the other hand sent text messages
explaining her absence, even asking for an advance, despite
not going to ABCD’s office to report to work.

18. The truth of the matter is that before respondent

could dismiss complainants on ground of abandonment, they
filed with the LA their complaint for illegal dismissal.

On complainant’s claim
that they are entitled to
backwages and
separation-pay.

19. As complainants by their own acts terminated

their employment, they are not therefore entitled to any
reinstatement or backwages as embodied in the Omnibus
Rules implementing the Labor Code. Nor are they entitled to
separation pay. As the Supreme Court laid

6
Leopard Integrated Services, Inc. v. Macalinao, G.R. No. 159808, September 30,
2008
Page 5 of 8
 “Given that petitioners were not illegally
dismissed, but voluntarily terminated their work,
therefore, they are not entitled to an award of
separation pay and backwages.”7

20. In RENO FOODS, INC., and/or VICENTE KHU vs.

Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM) - KATIPUNAN on
behalf of its member, NENITA CAPOR8, the Supreme Court
reiterated that a dishonest employee cannot be rewarded
with separation pay or any financial benefit. San Miguel
Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission 9
provides the reason of the Court:

“To hold otherwise, even in the name of

compassion, would be to send a wrong signal not
only that "crime pays" but also that one can enrich
himself at the expense of another in the name of
social justice. And courts as well as quasi-judicial
entities will be overrun by petitioners mouthing
dubious pleas for misplaced social justice. Indeed,
before there can be an occasion for compassion
and mercy, there must first be justice for all.
Otherwise, employees will be encouraged to steal
and misappropriate in the expectation that
eventually, in the name of social justice and
compassion, they will not be penalized but instead
financially rewarded. Verily, a contrary holding will
merely encourage lawlessness, dishonesty, and
duplicity. These are not the values that society
cherishes; these are the habits that it abhors.”

On complainant’s claim
that they are entitled to
damages.

21. Complainant’s claims for damages having totally

no basis must fail as they in fact voluntary terminated their
employment from ABCD.

22. Respondent respectfully calls the attention of the

honourable commission that the dates of the dismissal in
both complainants complaint are blank. This is another
7
Abad v. Roselle Cinema, G.R. No. 141371, March 24, 2006
8
G.R. No. 164016, March 15, 2010
9
325 Phil. 940, 952 (1996)
Page 6 of 8
indication of the absurdity and falsity of the complainants’
complaint.

23. Moral and exemplary damages are recoverable

only where the dismissal of the employee was attended by
bad faith or fraud or constituted an act oppressive to labor,
or were done in a manner contrary to good customs, morals
or public policy or were effected in wanton oppressive or
malevolent matter.10

24. Complainants were never dismissed but they in

fact were the ones who wronged the respondent and her
business.

25. A good name was which BBB strived for her travel
agency. She achieved and maintained this for almost twenty
years yet despite everything that she has given to the
complainants, they wronged her in the most shocking
manner. Like the parasite which sucked blood in its host,
complainants even spread lies to ABCD’s workers and
clients. They are the ones who should be made an example
of.

"He who comes into equity must come with clean hands."

PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Commission that judgment be rendered
DISMISSING the instant complaint for utter lack of merit.

25 June 2015, Batangas City for Calamba City.

___________________________________
Counsel for Respondents
___________________________________
PTR No. ___________________________________
IBP No. ___________________________________
Roll No. ___________________________________
MCLE Compliance Certificate No. ___________

10
Estiva v. NLRC G.R. No. 95145 August 5, 1993
Page 7 of 8
Copy furnished:

CCC
Brgy. _______________

AAA
Brgy. _______________

EXPLANATION

Copy of this Reply will be served to complainant

personally during the submission of the same on 26 June
2015.

_____________________________

Page 8 of 8