Republic of the Philippines NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION COMMISSION Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII Cebu City
JESSON R. TALABA, Complainant, -versus-
NLRC RAB-VII 11-2379-16
SOLAR INDUSTRIES, INC., and MR. ANDREW JOHN D. CHOI, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
POSITION PAPER
RESPONDENTS, by the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Commission, most respectfully submit this Position Paper, to wit:
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Complainant is of legal age, single, and a resident of Purok Sili, Cambaro, Mandaue City.
Respondent Solar Industries is a business entity duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines with office located at 280 Capistrano del Pilar Street, Cagayan de Oro City. Individual respondent Andrew John D. Choi is the General Manager of respondent Solar.
Respondent Solar is engaged in the business of marketing bags and luggages. It operates outlets in various malls in the Visayas and Mindanao and employs a workforce of about 20 employees.
Complainant was hired by respondent Solar sometime in March 2014 as Promodiser and assigned at Super Metro, Mandaue City.
Complainant was paid salary in accordance with the minimum wage requirement, which is P353.00 a day. Precisely, in his complaint, he did not claim underpayment of wages. Page 2
In addition, complainant was paid other benefits mandated by law such as 13 th month pay, overtime pay, holiday pay and service incentive leave with pay. For ready reference, machine copy of the pay slips of complainants are hereto attached and marked as Annex “1” to “1“1-m” and the summary of payments of other benefits and legal deductions from his salary like SSS, Pag-ibig Pag-ibig and Philhealth hereto attached and marked as Annex “2” to “2“2 -a”. a”.
The payroll of respondent Solar is prepared at its main office in Cagayan de Oro City. The amount of salary and other benefits due to the complainant during a particular payroll period is deposited in his ATM account, BDO 6018539078671280.
Complainant received the payment of his salary and other benefits due him. In fact, in his complaint, he has no claim for non-payment of wages.
On June 24, 2016, respondent informed complainant that he will be temporarily assigned to Gaisano Capital Mactan in Lapulapu City for a period of three (3) months from July 5, 2016 to October 5, 2016. He was given a copy of the introduction letter signed by Ms. Ellery Ann UyChoi addressed to the Personnel Manager of Gaisano Capital Mactan, machine copy of which is hereto attached and marked as Annex “3”. “3”.
Incidentally, on July 5, 2016, complainant did not report to the Gaisano Capital Mactan. He did not notify or ask permission from his Coordinator/Supervisor that he would be absent from work and the reason therefor.
On July 10, 2016, after five (5) days of complainant’s co mplainant’s absence from work without any communication, his Coordinator/Supervisor, Jennifer Jean S. Asuncion submitted an Incident Report, photocopy of which is hereto attached and marked as Annex “4”. “4”.
Sometime in August 2016, respondents were surprised to learn that complainant filed a complaint before this Arbitral Branch for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction, overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave with pay, separation pay, damages, an and d attorney’s fees. fees.
Page 3
ISSUES
1. Whether or not complainant was illegally dismissed? 2. Whether or not there is illegal deduction in the instant case? 3. Whether or not complainant is entitled to his claims for overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave with pay, separation pay, and damages?
ARGUMENT/DISCUSSION
On the fi r st issue issue.. It is respectfully submitted that there is no illegal dismissal in the instant case. Complainant simply refused to report to his new assignment.
The transfer of assignment of complainant from Super S uper Metro in Mandaue City to Gaisano Capital Mactan in Lapulapu City is a valid exercise of management prerogative. It does not affect the payment of salary and other benefits, the status of employment and security of tenure of complainant. It was not intended to impose undue hardship on the part of complainant. It was resorted to in the exigency of the business.
In one case, the Supreme Court held:
“The employer has the right to regulate, according to its discretion and
best judgment, all aspect of employment, including work assignment, working methods, processes to be followed, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and discipline, dismissal and recall of workers.” (Artifico (Artifico vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 625 SCRA 435)
In another case, the Supreme Court ruled:
“Jurisprudence recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives – labor laws also discourage interference with an employer’s judgment in the conduct of its business.” (Endico vs Quantum Foods Distribution Center, 577 SCRA299)
Page 4
Other than the bare assertion of complainant that he was dismissed, there is no evidence to support such allegation. In one case, the Supreme Court held:
“It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative
allegations, since the burden of evidence lies with a party who asserts an affirmative the plaintiff or defendant complainant has to prove histoaffirmative allegations allegation, in the complaint and the or respondent has prove his affirmative allegations in his affirmative de fense or counterclaims.” (Aklan Electric Cooperatives, Inc. vs. NLRC, G. R. No. 121939, January 25, 2000)
While it is true that in termination cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer, the same does not apply in the case at bar considering that respondents maintained that there was no dismissal. The burden is shifted to the complainant who alleged that he was dismissed.
On the second issue. There is no illegal deduction in the instant case.
As shown in the pay slips of complainants (Annex “1” to “1 -m”) and the summary of payments of other benefits bene fits and legal deductions, the only deductions made by respondents from the salary of complainant are for SSS, Pag-ibig Pag-ibig and Philhealth (Annex “2” to “2“2-a”). a”).
On the thir d issue issue.. Complainant is not entitled to his money claims.
With respect to the claims for overtime pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave, the pay slips of complainants (Annex “1” to “1“1 -m”) and the summary of payments of other benefits b enefits and legal deductions from his salary (Annex “2” to “2“2 -a”) would readily show that said benefits were granted by respondents and received by complainants.
On the claim for payment of separation pay, it is applicable only if the employee is terminated without any fault attributable to him. This is the pronouncement of the Supreme Court, to wit:
Page 5
“The right of an employee to demand for separation pay is always premised on the fact that the employee was illegally terminated” (Jo Cinema Corporation vs. Abellana, 360 SCRA 142).
In the present case, complainant was not dismissed from work. Hence, the claim for separation pay is without any legal basis. Regarding the claim for damages, the Supreme Suprem e Court ruled:
M oral d Mo da amages ges are re reco cov ver able w whe herr e tthe he di sm smissa issall of the employe loyee e was attended by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor or “
was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.” (Zamboanga City Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Buat, 243 SCRA 47)
The conditions for the grant of damages are completely wanting in the instant case.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Commission that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
March 17, 2017, Cebu City, Philippines.
PRINCESS DIANA WINDSOR Counsel for Respondents Corner Logarta-Jereza Sts., Cebu City IBP Lifetime No. 011111 PTR No. CEB1173852, 1/3/17, Cebu City MCLE Compliance V-0015013, 4/14/19 Roll No. 29953 Telefax: (032) 2536262 Mobile Phone: 09176227772 Email:
[email protected] Email:
[email protected]
Copy furnished:
Mr. Jesson Talaba Purok Sili, Cambaro Mandaue City 6014 Cebu Province
Page 6
VERIFICATION
I, ANDREW JOHN D. CHOI, of legal age, married, and with office address at 280 Capistrano del Pilar Street, Cagayan de Oro City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state: 1.
That I am one of the respondents in the above-entitled case;
2.
That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Position Paper; and
3.
That I have read the contents thereof and the allegations therein are true and correct to my own personal knowledge and based on authentic records and documents.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this ______ day of March 2017 at Cebu City, Philippines.
ANDREW JOHN D. CHOI Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______ day of March 2017 at Cebu City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his Driver’s License bearing number K02-96-067061 K02 -96-067061 as competent proof of his identity.
Doc. No. _____; Page No. _____; Book No. _____; Series of 2017.
