100917879 Respondent s Position Paper

Republic of the Philippines Department of Labor and Employment National Labor Relations Commission National Capital Region Quezon City

Theresa C. Labao et. al. Complainants !ersus NLRC NCR Case "#$%&'$#(%#$ )ing *ing +unglasses,-ace Plus erchandising et. al. Respondents

Respondent’s Position Paper Respondent through the undersigned unto this /onorable 0ffice most respectfully submit this Position Paper and in support thereof a!ers the follo1ing2

Parties Respondent3s4 )ing *ing +unglasses 1ith present address at 5!enida +hopper 6old Pasilio %& +anta Cruz anila &#&( and -ace Plus erchandising 1ith present address at +%7$%8# 9aclaran LRT +hopping all Taft 5!enue Pasay City &:## herein represented by its o1ner s. +usan +o being impleaded as party respondent Complainant3s4 Theresa C. Labao is of legal age single and a resident of (#' +amar +treet 9o. Pitogo 6uadalupe a;ati City &'&' and aricel D. archan of legal age single

Statement of the Case This is a case of an alleged illegal dismissal filed by complainants against herein respondent.

Facts of the Case Complainant s. Theresa C. Labao alleged that on )une n the performance of their duties complainants 1ere gi!en instruction not to ta;e a lea!e of absence together or both at the same time since they 1ere the only t1o salesladies in the stall. /o1e!er complainants !iolated this rule for being absent one day both at the same time. Complainant Theresa C. Labao reasoned out that she 1ent to see her doctor because she 1as pregnant. Respondent could not belie!e at first 1hat she learned about the complainant since she ;ne1 her as being single. Ne!ertheless complainant 1as reprimanded for not as;ing permission first and she did not li;e it. 0n the other hand co%complainant aricel archan 1as also reprimanded for gi!ing flimsy reason 1hy she 1as absent. 9oth complainants disli;ed being reprimanded hence they conni!ed and resorted to filing this complaint saying they 1ere illegally dismissed. The other respondent )ing *ing +unglasses has no connection 1hatsoe!er 1ith the complainants. They 1ere ne!er employed in any capacity by the said company.

Statement of the Issues ?hether or not the complainants 1ere illegally dismissed@ ?hether or not the complainants are entitled to the claim of separation pay@

 Arguments/Discussions Complainants were not illegally dismissed from employment.

The complainants 1ere not dismissed much more illegally dismissed from employment. >t 1as their o1n !olition not to report for 1or; as retaliation for being reprimanded. They ;ne1 !ery 1ell that the respondent 1ould suffer difficulties in conducting her business 1ithout them. 5s alleged in their complaint they 1ere illegally dismissed on +ep. #