REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMISSION
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
ARBITRATION BRANCH
Quezon City

Rodel Cruz
Complainant

NLRC NCR CASE NO: 08-114562-16

Versus

Raquel Alabro
Respondent
xx--------------------------------------------xx

POSITION PAPER

Complainant, through the undersigned counsel, unto this

Honorable Office, respectfully submits this position paper, and in
support thereof, hereby states that:

PARTIES

Rodel Cruz, Complainant in this case, Filipino of legal age and

with official address at 6 Road 4, Pag-Asa, Quezon City where he
may be served with summons and other legal processes of this
Honorable Office. Moreover, complainant is being represented by
Carpio Law Office with office address at Beehive Building, second
floor, Gen. T. De Leon, Valenzuela City.
Page 1 of 10

The respondent Raquel Alabro, Filipino of legal age and with

official address at 5 Road 3, Pag-Asa, Quezon City where she may
be served with summons and other legal processes of this
Honorable Office.

PREFARATORY STATEMENT

Under the 1987 Constitution in the Chapter on State Policies,

the following provisions are explicitly stated:
Sec. 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social and economic
force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their
welfare.
Likewise, as substantially provides in Art III, Sec. 1, 8; Art.
XIII, Sec 3 the constitutional right of the workers, the right to
property and due process. Employment is not merely a contractual
relationship; it has assumed the nature of property right. It may
spell difference whether or not a family will have food on their table,
roof over their heads and education for their children. It is for this
reason that the State has taken up measures to protect employees
from unjustified dismissals. It is also because of this that the right
to security of tenure is not only a statutory right but, more so, a
constitutional right. (Gonzales v NLRC- 5 th Division Cagayan de Oro
and Ateneo de Davao University, 313 SCRA 169)

NATURE OF THE CASE

This is an action initiated by the complainant, for illegal dismissal

and for payment of employment benefits.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Page 2 of 10

5.
6.

7.
8.

9.

1. Complainant is a skilled carpenter and works on a project

basis. While there was no project offered, he was hired by
Respondent to make repairs of her leaking roof.
2. Respondent asked complainant to replace the rusted sheets
giving an instructions that respondent wants the best
material to be used and to paint it with bright color paint.
3. Respondent asked Complainant to do the work while the
former is on vacation for two (2) weeks in Baguio City.
4. Complainant was given TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10, 000)
to buy for materials needed for the repair.
Complainant bought the materials needed as instructed and
started his work.
Two days after the start of respondents vacation, Complainant
got shock when Respondents maid handed the phone to him and
respondent told him that he was fired and asked to return the
rest of the money otherwise a criminal complaint will be filed
against him.
He was not given a chance to explain his side.
As a result of his termination, complainant suffered mental
anguish, sleepless nights, wounded feelings, serious anxiety,
moral shock, and social humiliation, especially concerning the
daily sustenance of the family.
Feeling aggrieved by the illegal acts of respondents, complainant
filed this labor case for illegal dismissal and other monetary
claims against respondents. In support of the foregoing
allegations, Annexes were attached and made integral part of this
Position Paper as well as his Verified Complaint in the National
Labor Relations Commission dated November 29, 2016. SEnA
and mediation-conciliation proceedings having failed, hence, this
Position Paper.

ISSUES

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY

DISMISSED AND WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT
WAS AFFORDED THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO
PAYMENT.
Page 3 of 10

3. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT IS LIABLE TO THE

COMPLAINANT FOR NOMINAL DAMAGES, MORAL AND
EXEMPLARY DAMES.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

FIRST ISSUE: (Illegal Dismissal and no Procedural Due Process)

Under Sec. 279 of the Labor Code provides that:

The employer shall not terminate the service of an employee except
for a just cause or when authorized by law.
Likewise, under section 1, Rule XIV of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of the Labor Code, the dismissal of an employee
must be for a just cause or authorized cause, and after due process.
The two requirements of this legal provision are:
a. The legality of the act of dismissal, that is, dismissal under
the grounds provided under Art. 282 [to 284] of the New
Labor Code; and
b. The legality in the manner of dismissal, that is, with due
observance of the procedural requirements of Sections 2, 5
and 6 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 130.
The right to labor is a constitutional as well as a statutory right.
Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry. A
man who has been employed to undertake certain labor and has
put into his time and effort is entitled to be protected. The right of a
person to his labor is deemed to be property within the meaning of
constitutional guarantees. That is his means of livelihood. He
cannot be deprived of his labor or work without due process of law.
(Esmalin v NLRC, G.R. No. L-67880, 15 September 1989)
The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute essential
elements of due process in cases of employee dismissal: the
requirement of notice is intended to inform the employee concerned
of the employers intent to dismiss and the reason for the proposed
dismissal; upon the other hand, the requirement of hearing affords
the employee of the opportunity to answer his employers charges
Page 4 of 10

against him and accordingly to defend himself therefrom before

dismissal is effected. Neither of these two requirements can be
dispensed with without running afoul of the due process
requirement of the 1987 Constitution. (Century Textile Mills v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 77859, 25 May 1988)
Complainant was not afforded of his rights under the
Constitution. He was not even given his right of the two
requirements of substantial and due process for his termination.
Worst, he was terminated over the phone, not given a chance to
explain himself and was not given his wage.
From the foregoing facts, it is clear that the dismissal of the
complainant was illegal; thus, she should paid of him wages. Also,
no procedural process was accorded to him prior to his termination.

SECOND ISSUE: (Entitled of Payment)

The determination of entitlement of payment of herein Complainant
depends on the nature of his work with the respondent.
Complainant was hired for the purpose of fixing the home roof of
respondent herein.
Under the DO 5, DOLE (February 4, 1992), is now Rule XIV,
Book III of the Internal Rules Regulation (IRR), Homeworker applies
to any person who performs industrial homework for an
employer, contractor, or sub-contractor. [Sec. 1, Rule XIV, Book III].
The question now would be, how industrial homework constitutes?
And who are employers of homeworker?
An Industrial homework:
(1) Is a system of production under which work for an
employer or contractor is carried out by a homeworker at
his/her home.
(2) Materials may or may not be furnished by the employer or
contractor.
(3) Decentralized form of production, where there is ordinarily
very little supervision or regulation of methods of work.
[Sec. 2(a), Rule XIV, Book III]
Page 5 of 10

An employer of homeworker includes any person, natural or

artificial who, for his account or benefit, or on behalf of any
person residing outside the country, directly or indirectly, or
through an employee, agent contractor, subcontractor or any
other person:
1. Delivers or causes to be delivered, any goods, articles or
materials to be processed or fabricated in or about a home and
thereafter to be returned or to be disposed of or distributed in
accordance with his directions.
2. Sells any goods, articles or materials to be processed or
fabricated in or abut a home and then rebuys them after such
processing or fabrication, either by himself or through some
other person. [Art. 155, Labor Code]

It shall be the duty of the employer to provide in such contract that

the employees or Homeworkers of the contractor and the latters
subcontractor shall be paid in accordance with the Labor Code.
Complainant therefore would be considered as a homeworker. As
such he shall be paid by Respondent.

THIRD ISSUE: (Nominal Damages, Exemplary Damages, Moral

Damages)
Evidently, the Respondents violated the right of the
complainant to be furnished with two written notices prior to
dismissal as specifically provided by Article 277 (b) of the Labor
Code of the Philippines. The proper award is nominal damages
under the Civil Code as it is intended to vindicate the right to
procedural process violated by the employer. In the case of Agabaon
vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 158693, 7 November, 2004) the employer was
ordered to indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory
right which warrants the indemnity in the form of nominal
damages.

Page 6 of 10

The complaint is likewise entitled to moral damages because

her dismissal was attended by bad faith which is constitutive of an
act oppressive to labor. The Supreme Court uphold the award of
moral as well as exemplary damages in view of the bad faith
attendant to the treatment of the employee (Lim v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 79907, March 16, 1989)

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Labor Arbiter, the decision be rendered, to
wit:
1. Declaring the termination of the herein complainant as
illegal and further, and order the Respondent to pay
Complainant in accordance with law.
2. Ordering the respondent to pay the herein complainant
nominal damages in the amount of P50, 000 for not
affording to the complainant the procedural process, the
amount of P50, 000 as moral damages and the amount of
P50, 000 as exemplary damages.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are also
prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Quezon City, December 9, 2016

CARPIO LAW OFFICE

Beehive Building, second floor, Gen. T. De Leon, Valenzuela City.
Tel No. (02) 293-4223

By:
Page 7 of 10

Jahzel D. Carpio
Counsel for Complainant
Counsel for Respondent
Roll of Attorney No.: 5745
IBP No.: 12456
MCLE Compliance No.: 976542
Copy furnished:

The Respondents

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

Page 8 of 10

I, RODEL CRUZ, of legal age and Filipino, after having been

duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state THAT:

I am the Complainant in the above entitled case; I have cause

the preparation of the foregoing Position Paper and I have read the
same and the contents of which are true and correct of my
knowledge and/or on the basis of authentic documents.
I have not filed any other cause of action involving the same
set of facts, parties or the sane relief as the foregoing in any court,
tribunal and/or before any quasi-judicial bodies or administrative
agencies and in the event I should learn that a similar action or
proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals, or the different Divisions thereof, the Regional
Trial Court, or any other judicial tribunal or agency in the
Philippines, I undertake to inform this Honorable Arbiter and such
other tribunal or agency of that fact five (5) days therefrom.

In witness whereof, I hereunto affix my signature on the date

and place mentioned in the jurat.

RODEL CRUZ
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this December 8,

2016 in Quezon City; affiant is personally known to the Notary
Public.

EMER LEY ORTEGA

Notary Public
Until December 31, 2016
Commission No. NP-034
Place: Quezon City
Page 9 of 10

DOC NO _____
PAGE NO _____
BOOK NO _____
SERIES OF 2016

ROA NO: 43325

PTR NO 4527445-2.1.16-QC
IBP LM No 02838-1.14.14
MCLE No. V.-0007643

Page 10 of 10