Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No.
_______ City

____________________,
SRAB CASE NOS.
Complainants, __________
-versus-

____________________
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - x

POSITION PAPER

RESPONDENT _______________, by and thru its

authorized representative, unto this Honorable Office, most
respectfully states that:

NATURE OF THE CASE

This is a complaint for illegal dismissal with money

claims.

THE PARTIES

Complainants are of legal age, Filipinos, with residences

as stated in their complaint.

Respondent __________________, is a domestic

corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of
the Republic of the Philippines, with principal office address
at________________, Davao City. It is hereby represented
by ______________________________, whose authority is
hereto attached as ANNEX 1.

Respondent CORPORATION, is a domestic corporation

duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of
the Philippines, with principal office address at
_________________________________.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

Respondent-corporation posits that the instant case

should be dismissed on the following ground/s:

COMPLAINANT ZARAGOSA WAS

A SEASONAL EMPLOYEE WHO
EVENTUALLY ABANDONED HIS
JOB WITH THE MIRANDAS

Complainant Zaragosa started out as a tractor operator

in _____ 2009 of the land personally owned by the Spouses
Miranda for which he was paid on a pakyaw basis.
Thereafter, he worked as a ___________ until May 28, 2012
still paid on pakyaw basis as per Affidavit of
____________________ hereto attached as Annex A.
(PLEASE ADD MORE DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF WORK)
Thus, it is apparent that from the start of his employment
that Complainant Zaragosa was consistently been hired as a
seasonal worker and paid on a pakyaw basis.

In the case of Mercado, et. al. vs. National Labor

Relations Commission (NLRC) , et. al.,1 the Supreme Court
held that rules applicable to regular and casual employment
is not meant to advance interest of laborers and oppress
agricultural land owners, to wit:

Policy Instruction No. 12 of the Department

of Labor and Employment discloses that the
concept of regular and casual employees was
designed to put an end to casual employment in
regular jobs, which has been abused by many
employers to prevent called casuals from
enjoying the benefits of regular employees or to
prevent casuals from joining unions. The same
instructions show that the proviso in the second
paragraph of Art. 280 was not designed to
stifle small-scale businesses nor to oppress
agricultural land owners to further the

1 GR 79869, September 5, 1991

 interests of laborers, whether agricultural or
industrial. What it seeks to eliminate are abuses
of employers against their employees and not, as
petitioners would have us believe, to prevent
small-scale businesses from engaging in
legitimate methods to realize profit. Hence, the
proviso is applicable only to the employees who
are deemed "casuals" but not to the "project"
employees nor the regular employees treated in
paragraph one of Art. 280. (underscoring
supplied)

The case of Abasolo, et. al. vs. NLRC, et.al. 2 touched

upon the status of seasonal workers during off-season or
those times they do not have work. Thus, the Supreme
Court declared to wit:

In the case at bar, while it may appear that

the work of petitioners is seasonal, inasmuch as
petitioners have served the company for many
years, some for over 20 years, performing
services necessary and indispensable to
LUTORCOs business, serve as badges of regular
employment. Moreover, the fact that petitioners
do not work continuously for one whole year but
only for the duration of the tobacco season does
not detract from considering them in regular
employment since in a litany of cases this Court
has already settled that seasonal workers who
are called to work from time to time and are
temporarily laid off during off-season are not
separated from service in said period, but are
merely considered on leave until re-employed.

After May 28, 2012, Complainant Zaragosa did not

report to work at the farm of Spouses Miranda in ______
but commenced his employment with Tagum Agricultural
Development Company, Inc. (TADECO) until August 2009.
After his stint at TADECO, he starting working on the one
(1) or two (2) hectare farm of Almaca Cooperative located
____kilometers away from the Mirandas' farm as borne out
by the Affidavit of ________ hereto attached as ANNEX
B. It should be noted that the Mirandas' farm is a totally
separate and independent farm from that owned by the

2 GR 118475, November 29, 2000

 Requillos which is located
___________________________________.
Mr. Zaragosa continued his employment with the
Hospicia de Requillo from June 2012 until December 31,
2016. Mrs. Miranda offered work to Mr. Zaragosa work in the
Mirandas' farm on January 2, 2017 however, the latter
refused. As seasonal workers are considered as on leave of
absence without pay until reemployment, in effect, Mr.
Zaragosa was on leave of absence without pay from the
Mirandas' farm from May 29,2012 to December 30,2016. His
refusal to come back to work at the Mirandas' farm can be
construed as abandonment of work. Such fact was also
contained in the Minutes of Conciliation meeting held at
before the Labor Arbiter. The High Court laid down the
requisites of a valid abandonment of work in Macahilig vs.
NLRC, et. al.,3 to wit:

Jurisprudence holds that for abandonment of

work to exist, it is essential (1) that the employee
must have failed to report for work or must have
been absent without valid or justifiable reason;
and (2) that there must have been a clear
intention to sever the employer-employee
relationship as manifested by some overt acts.
Deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of
the employee to go back to his work post and
resume his employment must be established.
Absence must be accompanied by overt acts
unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee
simply does not want to work anymore.

In the instant case, Mr. Zaragosa did not provide a

justifiable reason on his refusal to return to work at the
Mirandas' farm. That he did not report for work at the
Mirandas' farm after January 2, 2017 clearly signifies his
intention to sever the employer-employee relationship
between him and the Spouses Miranda.

COMPLAINANT ZARAGOZA'S MONEY CLAIMS ALREADY

PRESCRIBED

As provided under Article 291 of the Labor Code, which requires that
money claims arising from employer-employee relations be filed within

3 GR 158095, November 23, 2007

three years from the time the cause of action accrued:

Art. 291. MONEY CLAIMS. All money claims arising from employer-
employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be
filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued;
otherwise they shall be forever barred.

Article 291 covers claims for overtime pay, holiday pay, service
incentive leave pay, bonuses, salary differentials, and illegal
deductions by an employer. It also covers money claims arising from
seafarer contracts.

The provision, however, does not cover "money claims" consequent to

an illegal dismissal such as backwages.It also does not cover claims
for damages due to illegal dismissal. These claims are governed by
Article 1146 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which provides:

Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years:

(1) Upon injury to the rights of the plaintiff.

On February 08, 2017, Zaragoza filed his complaint against

Spouses Miranda representing underpayment of his salaries, 13 th
month pay and non-payment of his holiday pay, overtime pay, service
incentive leave pay and separation pay. Likewise, he filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal with prayer for payment of backwages.

In this case, it is evident that the cause of action of the herein

complainant already prescribed. With respect to his claim for
underpayment of his salaries and 13th month pay and non payment of
his SIL, holiday pay, overtime pay and separation pay, the three year
prescriptive period under the Labor Code applied. Considering, that
herein complainant filed his money claim more than three (3) years
from his alleged illegal dismissal on May 28, 2012, his claims were
filed beyond the three prescriptive period. Hence, already barred.

Likewise, his money claims arising from his complaint for illegal
dismissal also prescribed. As settled, the four-year prescriptive period
under Article 1146 also applies to actions for damages due to illegal
dismissal since such actions are based on an injury to the rights of
the person dismissed. In this case, herein complainant filed his
complaint only on February 8, 2017 or more than four (4) years from
his alleged illegal dismissal on May 28, 2012.He, therefore, filed his
claims beyond the four-year prescriptive period.

All told, Zaragoza's actuation is contrary to a natural reaction of

an aggrieved person. If he indeed was an aggrieved party, he would
have filed this complaint immediately and should not have waited for
more than three (3) years to sue the herein Respondent Spouses
Miranda.

COMPLAINANT IS NOT
ENTITLED TO THE RELIEFS
SOUGHT AND TO AWARDS FOR
DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS
FEES.

Basic in this jurisdiction is that he who asserts a right

must prove it. In labor disputes, the evidence mandated by
law are these relevant evidence which a reasonable and
unbiased mind would accept to support a conclusion.4

In a similar setting, the Supreme Court expounded and

ruled that the onus probandi falls on the shoulders of
petitioner to establish or substantiate such claims by the
requisite quantum of evidence. In labor cases as in other
administrative proceedings, substantial evidence or such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
sufficient to support a conclusion is required.5

In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof

necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence, i.e.,
that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Further,
the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial
evidence the allegations in his complaint. The basic rule is
that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to
proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation
likewise cannot be given credence. Hence, when the
complainant relies on mere conjectures and
suppositions, and fails to substantiate his allegations,
the administrative complaint must be dismissed for
lack of merit.6 (emphasis and underscore supplied)

4
Sevillana vs. I.T. (International) Corp., G.R. No. 99047. April 16, 2001
5
UST Faculty Union vs. UST, G.R. No. 180892, April 7, 2009
6
Dr. Castor De Jesus vs. Rafael D. Guerrero III, et.al., G.R. No. 171491,
September 4, 2009
 Basically, allegations must be proven by sufficient
evidence because mere allegation is definitely not evidence.
Thus, it is incumbent upon the complainant to show proof
that he is entitled to the reliefs sought.

As to complainants claim for Attorneys fees, Article

111 of the Labor Code is plain and clear, that:

Art. 111. ATTORNEYS FEES.

(a) In cases of unlawful withholding of
wages the culpable party may be
assessed attorneys fees equivalent to
ten percent of the amount of wages
recovered.

From the foregoing, it is most prudent that the instant

complaint against respondent Davao Central Warehouse
should fail, in view of the absence of employer-employee
relationship.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed that respondent ______________________ be
dropped from the complaint, in view of prescription of the
cause of action of complainant and his abandonment of
work.

Such other reliefs, just and equitable under the

premises are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.