Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

ARVIN A. PASCUAL,

Complainant,

- VERSUS - NLRC NCR Case No. NCR-05-05071-15

LABOR ARBITER MARCIAL GALAHAD T. MAKASIAR

SITEL PHILIPPINES and/or

MICHAEL LEE,
ASWIN SUKUMAR,
PHOEBE MONICA ARGANA
REMIL CANDA, and
AMOR REYES,

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

REJOINDER
(To Respondents’ Reply)

COMPLAINANT, by counsel, unto this Honorable Office, most

respectfully submits the following comments by way of Rejoinder to Respondents’
Reply, as follows:

PREFATORY

“The name of the game is fair play, not foul play. We cannot
allow a legal skirmish where, from the start, one of the protagonists
enters the arena with one arm tied to his back.” (Separate
concurring opinion of Justice Teodoro Padilla in Republic vs. Sandigan
Bayan [G.R. Nos. 109430-43 December 28, 1994])

"A party's falsehood or other fraud in the preparation and

presentation of his cause, his fabrication or suspension of evidence by
bribery or spoliation, and all similar conduct, is receivable against him
as an indication of his consciousness that his case is weak or
unfounded, and from that consciousness may be inferred the fact
itself of the cause's lack of truth and merit." (De Leon vs. Juyco,
[G.R. No. L-46153, June 5, 1942], citing I Wigmore on Evidence, sec.
277, pp. 566-568)

Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 1 of 17

 1. The handwriting on the wall is clear and unmistakable, a reading of
Respondents’ position paper and reply instantaneously betray a baneful intent on their
part to pervert the course of justice. A mere cursory reading of Respondents’
pleadings revealed that the necessary motive behind Respondents’ conduct is to
becloud the truthful accounts of Complainant’s resignation albeit against his will. The
ultimate is the baneful goal of depriving Complainant what he truly deserves having
been illegally and constructively dismissed by Respondents. In summary, this broad
range of Respondents’ [MIS]conduct includes CHARACTER ASSASINATION,
MALICIOUS IMPUTATION OF OFFENSE, SUPPRESSION & FABRICATION OF
EVIDENCE, and PERVERSION OF TRUTH.

1.1 Character Assassination

What is most depressing in this case is that, Respondents, in their

Position Paper and Reply, in desperate attempt to reject Complainant’s cause,
opted to attack the very person of Complainant by labeling him as PARANOID
(pp. 3,4,7 and 14 - Reply), SCRIPWRITER and DRAMATIST (p.3 position
paper), as well as FABRICATOR OF LIES (p.19 position paper).

Respondents’ continual and fierce forays of vilification and persecution,

without a tinge of doubt, are offensive and derogatory palpably calculated to
dishonor and discredit the good name and reputation of Complainant. What
Respondents are trying to establish sorely is Complainant’s lack of credibility
which by legal standard is wanting of any probative value. It is a basic rule on
evidence that the moral character of a party is generally inadmissible. It may
be admitted only when the issue of pertinent character is itself involved in the
case (Section 51, Rule 130, Rules on Evidence).

On another point, while these defamatory statements were written by

Respondents’ legal counsel, it is legal truism that the language of Respondents’
legal counsel is deemed to be the language of the person who signed the
verification of a pleading. In the instant case, Respondent Aswin Sukumar – an
Indian national. Just a thought, who between the Complainant and Respondent
Sukumar has the propensity towards committing slander?

Corollary to the foregoing, Complainant, with the indulgence of the

Honorable Labor Arbiter, posed the following questions: [a] Is this how a
global employer treats a lowly Filipino worker like Complainant whose only
motive is the defense of his constitutional right? and [b] If Complainant truly
possessed the kind of reputation or character, which the latter vehemently deny,
that Respondents had portrayed him to be in their pleadings, how is it possible
that he was promoted twice by Respondents and permitted by them to stay in
its employ for eight (8) straight years before easing him out?

Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 2 of 17

 1.2 Suppression and Fabrication of Documentary Evidence

Annexes 1 up to 3 of Respondents’ Reply are not the official pay slips of

Sitel. Below is a reproduction of Sitel’s OFFICIAL PAY SLIP.

Upon the other hand, below is a reproduction of Complainant’s pay slip

fabricated by Respondents.

It is discernable that Respondents were constrained to fabricate pay slips

because they do not want to highlight the coach incentive pay that they granted
to Complainant during the months of August and September 2014.
Respondent’s grant of coach incentive pay to Complainant will run counter to
the contents of their fabricated Team Performance vs. Goal result as well
as Focus Group Discussion result (pages #8 and #9 of Respondents’
position paper).

Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 3 of 17

 It should be noted that Respondents utilized the fabricated Team
Performance vs. Goal result as well as Focus Group Discussion result to beef up
their malicious imputation that Complainant is inept in the performance of his
duties and responsibilities as Comcast CSG coach. Additionally, to damage
Complainant’s reputation in furtherance of Respondents’ character assassination
foray.

Unsatisfied with fabrication of documentary evidence, Respondents went

bolder with their oppressive acts against Complainant by suppressing the
evidence that Complainant in fact submitted medical certificates duly verified by
Respondent Sitel’s Clinic Team. (Annexes “A” up to “A-10” and Annex “B” of
Complainant’s Reply). All these verified medical certificates were copy circulated
via electronic mail correspondence to Respondents Canda, Reyes, and Argana.

The wicked goals of Respondents in suppressing the truth about the

submission of verified medical certificates by Complainant are as follows:

A] Heighten Respondents’ character assassination strategy that

Complainant is an absentee coach; and

B] Justify their illegal withholding of Complainant’s salary.

1.3 Perversion of Truths

Respondents are manifestly drawing away the Honorable Labor Arbiter

from what the facts are. In addition to slaughter of Complainant’s character and
reputation as well as suppression and production of evidence, Respondents even
indulged into corruption of facts, as follows:

1.3.1 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that
former Operations Manager Glenn Kuan illegally enticed Complainant on
18 October 2014 to resign (please see p. 10 of Complainant’s Position
Paper and its attached Annexes “C-1”).

1.3.2 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that
it was Respondent Argana who prevented Complainant from participating
in the administrative hearing by exhibiting cold disdain to all of
Complainant’s requests in contravention of prevailing law and
jurisprudence. Among these requests which were contumaciously denied
by Respondent Argana are (a) to be provided with copies of all
documents, records, and evidence against the latter in the possession of
Respondents. The intention of Complainant is to afford his legal counsel
the opportunity of prior review. Enabling him (Complainant) therefore to

Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 4 of 17

 properly and intelligently prepare his defenses to the infractions leveled
against him (please see Annexes “H” up to “H-5” of Complainant’s
Position Paper) and (b) to be given with a written clarification what
exactly is the scope or meaning of the phrase “xxx to assist you during
the administrative hearing.” (please see Annexes “I” to “I-3” of
Complainant’s Position Paper)

1.3.3 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that
on 25 November 2014, Complainant filed a grievance in relation to the
five – day suspension jointly imposed on him by Respondents Sukumar,
Argana and Reyes. Complainant sent his grievance notice via electronic
mail correspondence to (but said grievance notice was treated
with cold disdain by) Respondent Sukumar. (please see Annexes “P”
to “P-1” of Complainant’s Position Paper)

1.3.4 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that
Respondents peremptorily deducted the amount of Php6,896.50 from his
salary due on 28 November 2014. To substantiate the illegal deduction,
Respondents suppressed the verified medical certificates submitted by
Complainant. (please see Annexes “A” to “A-10” and Annex “B” of
Complainant’s Reply)

1.3.5 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact of
Respondents Argana’s and Lee’s contumacious refusal to issue
Complainant’s certificate of employment despite written demands. The
refusal of Respondents to issue certificate of employment to a terminated
employee like Complainant is a patent violation of the Labor Code (please
see Annex “T-2” of Complainant’s Position Paper)

1.3.6 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that
Respondent Reyes humiliated Complainant on 3 December 2014 when he
submitted the Reply to CARE form 1 (Notice to Explain) that Respondent
Reyes served to Complainant on 2 December 2014 with stern warning
that should Complainant fail to submit his written explanation within 24
hours, the latter will be suspended.

Anent the foregoing, Respondent Reyes, in a hostile and furious

mood and in a manner offensive to Complainant's dignity and personality,
tongue lashed Complainant when the latter requested clarification why he
was being charged of AWOL whereas he submitted duly verified medical
certificates. Respondent Reyes uttered – “Arvin, do you believed that
you are worthy of any explanation!” (please see Annexes “V” to “V-3” of
Complainant’s Position Paper)

Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 5 of 17

 1.3.7 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that
Complainant’s plea for one day deferment so that he could consult his
legal counsel before he acknowledge receipt the 5-day suspension notice
that Respondent Sukumar was compelling him to accept on 21 November
2014 irritated the latter. As a consequence thereof, sarcastically made a
remark against Complainant – “Don’t you have your own mind that you
still need legal advice before you affix your signature in the suspension
notice!”

1.3.8 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that
Respondents Canda and Reyes are fully aware that Respondent Sitel had
been incurring pecuniary losses ever since Diosdado Remion was placed
on off-the-phone status effective 14 May 2014 because the latter
continuously receive salary without productive output. (please see Annex
“C” of Complainant’s Reply)

1.3.9 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the fact that
Complainant, on his own volition, coordinated with the Comcast Quality
Team as evidenced by an electronic mail correspondence dated 21 July
2014. Complainant in truth and in fact requested for a transcription of
the call between Remion and the customer who accused the latter of
exhibiting rude behavior on 13 May 2014. But the Comcast Quality Team
failed to provide him with the transcript of call. Without the transcript
of call, there is no case against Remion. (please see Annex “D” of
Complainant’s Reply)

1.4 Malicious Imputation of Offenses

1.4.1 Respondents alleged in their Reply that Complainant’s infractions

are as follows:

a] Willful failure to act on the case of Mr. Remion who with his full
knowledge was loitering for four (4) months and still receiving his
salary (last paragraph p.3); and

b] Refusal to act on the instructions of Mr. Kuan to refer the case

of Mr. Remion to Human Resources (1st paragraph p.4).

Complainant repleads and adopt the allegations in paragraphs #3 and #4

of his Reply to Respondents’ Position Paper insofar as they are material,
relevant, and pertinent and not contrary to the allegations made in this
Rejoinder.

Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 6 of 17

 Complainant further states that Respondent Sitel has the absolute control
over its information technology and electronics communication system.
Given this scenario, it is quite puzzling how it is possible that all the
Respondents in the instant case were NOT AWARE about the existence
of electronic mail correspondences that would clearly exonerate
Complainant from any liability regarding the Diosdado Remion case. (for
ready reference, copies of Annexes “C” and “D” of Complainant’s Reply
are reproduced in pages 8 and 9 hereof respectively)

The reason is plain and obvious. One need not stretch the imagination
too far. Respondents maliciously suppressed the presentation of these
email correspondences because they could not bear the thought that
being managers and senior manager they would be penalized for gross
negligence in the performance of duties. There is no better escape goat
and later on as sacrificial lamb but herein Complainant. Respondents
knew what was coming. In order to save their neck, they had to devise a
scheme to pass all the blame to Complainant. Thus, they displayed the
kind of conduct all of which were punitive in nature and offensive to
elementary norms of justice and fair play (e.g. infringement of
constitutional right to due process, insults, coercion, discrimination, illegal
deduction from salary, imposition of misplaced superiority, etc.) so that
Complainant would be compelled to leave Respondent Sitel.

2. Respondents alleged in their Reply (p.11) that the notice of suspension

jointly served to Complainant by Respondents Sukumar, Argana, and Reyes on 21
November 2014 was valid in form despite non-compliance with the pertinent
provisions of Sitel Code of Conduct.

Furthermore, Respondents admitted in their Reply (p.11) that a waiver of right

to be heard in an administrative investigation must be expressed pursuant to pertinent
provisions of Respondent Sitel’s Code of Conduct. It is mandatory that any employee
similarly situated as Complainant must accomplish an Administrative
Investigation Waiver Form as provided for in pp.27-28 of Sitel Code of
Conduct. However, Respondents subliminally justified in their Reply that
such provision cannot be made applicable to Complainant.

Anent the foregoing, Complainant repleads and adopt the allegations in

paragraph #1 (p.46 of Complainant’s Position Paper) and paragraph #2 (p.47
Complainant’s Position Paper) insofar as they are material, relevant, and pertinent and
not contrary to the allegations made in this Rejoinder.

Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 7 of 17

 Reproduction of Annex “C”

Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 8 of 17

 Reproduction of Annex “D”

Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 9 of 17

 Complainant further states that in Tan vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 128290 [November 24,
1998], the Supreme Court said –

“It should be stressed that the respondent company is bound to

observe its own procedural rules, which were put in place to protect the
right of its employees to due process. Its failure to comply with such
rules was indeed unfair and arbitrary xxxx” (emphasis supplied)

3. Respondents in p. #9 of their Reply alleged that the following statements in

Complainant’s position paper are self-serving and baseless for no evidence was
shown to support the same, to wit:

“Complainant, at the time of his coerced resignation, was suffering

from a medical condition (both physiological and psychological) that
requires immediate medical attention/procedure.”

There is no evidence? This is the twisted narration of facts by Respondents.

They thought that they would be successful in perverting the truth by suppressing the
existence of verified medical certificates duly submitted by Complainant (copies of the
duly submitted verified medical certificates attached in Complainant’s Reply as Annexes
“A” up to “A-10.”). Respondents were unsuccessful though.

As shown in the verified medical certificates issued by Sitel’s accredited doctors,

Complainant was suffering from the following medical conditions (physiological and
psychological): cervical disc prolapse, peripheral neuropathy, cervical
stenosis, cervical radiculopathy, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine
headache, and acute pharyngitis.

4. Furthermore, Respondents in p. #9 as well of their Reply alleged that the

following statements in Complainant’s position paper are irrelevant and baseless for
no evidence was shown to support the same, to wit:

“… Records of Respondent Sitel will reveal that during the six-year

period Complainant was assigned in the Virgin Media account, his sick
leave benefit is intact and always converted into its cash equivalent. It
was only after Complainant was transferred to the Comcast CSG account
that his health drastically deteriorated due to the harsh, hostile and
unfavorable conditions set for him by Respondents…..”

The jurisprudential guide is that the burden of proof rests with Respondents. In
Libcap Marketing Corp. vs. Baquial (G.R. No. 192011 30 June 2014), the Supreme
Court held, to wit:

Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 10 of 17

 “As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of
proving it. Even where the employee must allege nonpayment, the
general rule is that the burden rests on the employer to prove payment,
rather than on the employee to prove nonpayment. The reason for the
rule is that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and
other similar documents — which will show that overtime, differentials,
service incentive leave and other claims of workers have been paid — are
not in the possession of the employee but in the custody and absolute
control of the employer.” (underscoring and emphasis supplied)

5. Respondents beseeched the Honorable Labor Arbiter not to give credence to

all the electronic messages sent by Complainant to all of them. Respondents justified
its request by adducing the unsound reason and self-serving allegation that the
contents of Complainant’s electronic mail correspondences are baseless and imaginary
(page 12 of Respondents’ Reply).

The truth is that Complainant had been very transparent in all his dealings with
Respondents. Complainant tirelessly communicated with Respondents. Upon the
other hand, Respondents treated everything with cold disdain. They simply shrugged
their shoulders down to all of Complainant’s communication efforts. Respondents
treated all communications of Complainant with cold disdain.

The Supreme Court in numerous cases held that silence on an accusation is

deemed an admission, especially because he had every chance to deny it. Deafening
silence can be considered a tacit admission thereof (Tan v. Dela Cruz, Jr., A.M. No. P-
04-1892 [30 September 2004; Grefaldeo v. Lacson, A.M. No. MTJ-93-881 [3 August
1998]; Plus Builders, Inc. vs. Revilla, A.C. No. 7056 [13 September 2006])

Additionally, the case of The Philippine American Life and General Insurance Co.
vs. Angelita Gramaje, G.R. No. 156963 [November 11, 2004] is also instructive, to wit:

“xxxx Incongruously, taking into consideration the said contents of

the formal letter of rejection, there was no response whatsoever from the
aforesaid offices (underscoring supplied). It may be true, as stated by
petitioner, that "the alleged memorandum pertaining to the meeting held
on 18 November 1998 on the alleged P250,000 settlement offer was
prepared by respondent alone without any participation from the
company," but the fact remains that no formal response was ever made
by any of the three offices which received the same. The contents
thereof, if untrue, would have elicited a stark and strong reaction
from any of the three offices.” (emphasis supplied).

Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 11 of 17

 6. Respondents alleged in page #14 of their Reply that –

“Thus, even if complainant mistakenly concluded that his

submission of his resignation was by reason of his unbearable working
conditions, the acceptance of his resignation clearly ends the
employer-employee relationship. Hence, in the end, it was complainant’s
paranoia that severed his employment with Sitel.”

Complainant repleads and adopt the allegations in paragraph #12 [Complainant’s

Reply] insofar as they are material, relevant, and pertinent and not contrary to the
allegations made in this Rejoinder.

Complainant further states that foremost, the formal acceptance of

resignation letter of Complainant on 18 December 2014 by Respondent
Reyes [marked Annex “8” in Respondents’ position paper] is a fabricated
document.

Obviously, it would be preposterous for Complainant to send his resignation

letter to Respondent Reyes via two modes if Respondent Reyes truly and formally
accepted a resignation letter alleged to have been personally tendered by Complainant
on 18 December 2014. The two modes are as follows:

[a] Sent another copy to Respondent Reyes via electronic mail correspondence
on the following day, 12 December 2014 at 9:24 A.M. (Annex “U” up to Annex
“U-3” of Complainant’s position paper); and

[b] Printed another copy of the same notice and sent it to Respondent Reyes
via registered mail with return card on 15 December 2014 (Annex “V” up to
Annex “V-3” of Complainant’s position paper).

7. The supposition of Respondents that the acceptance of Complainant’s

resignation letter using a fabricated documentary evidence clearly ends the
employer-employee relationship is glaringly erroneous.

The point in issue in the instant case is whether the execution of the resignation
letter tendered by Complainant to Respondents Lee and Reyes was voluntary or
involuntary. Put differently, whether the execution of the resignation letter tendered by
Complainant and alleged to have been formally received by Respondent Reyes on 18
December 2014 using a fabricated documentary evidence was voluntary or involuntary.
Simply stated, the point in issue here is not the acceptance of the resignation letter.
Instead, the voluntariness or involuntariness of its execution by Complainant. The
jurisprudential guide is that onus thereof rests with Respondents.

Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 12 of 17

 8. In Peñaflor vs. Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing Corporation (G.R. No.
177114, 13 April 2010), the Supreme Court said:

The fact of filing a resignation letter alone does not shift the burden of
proving that the employee’s dismissal was for a just and valid cause from
the employer to the employee. In Mora v. Avesco, we ruled that should
the employer interpose the defense of resignation, it is still incumbent
upon the employer to prove that the employee voluntarily resigned.
XXXX
While the letter states that Peñaflor’s resignation was irrevocable, it does
not necessarily signify that it was also voluntarily executed. Precisely
because of the attendant hostile and discriminatory working environment,
Peñaflor decided to permanently sever his ties with Outdoor Clothing. This
falls squarely within the concept of constructive dismissal that
jurisprudence defines, among others, as involuntarily resignation due to
the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions set by the employer. It
arises when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer
exists and has become unbearable to the employee. The gauge for
constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s
position would feel compelled to give up his employment under the
prevailing circumstances.”

9. In pages #18 and #19 of their Reply, Respondents, like a broken music
record of the past era insisted that Complainant’s absences from work on the following
dates were without valid or justifiable reason: Nov. 10, 13, 17, 22, 23, and 24, 2014.

Complainant repleads and adopt the allegations in paragraph #2 [Complainant’s

Reply] insofar as they are material, relevant, and pertinent and not contrary to the
allegations made in this Rejoinder.

Complainant further states that by suppression of the verified medical certificates

duly submitted by Complainant to Respondent Sitel’s Clinic Team, they thought that
they were successful in their bad-natured design to consider him on AWOL and
peremptorily applied the principle of no-work, no-pay policy. Thus, putting Complainant
into deeper financial trauma.

Undeniably, this is an explicit manifestation of oppression by Respondents

against Complainant.

10. As an outgrowth of Respondents’ capricious imagination, they went further

by accusing Complainant that he called Respondent Sukumar as a “racist.” This is
baseless and devoid of truth. Nowhere in any of Complainant’s electronic mail

Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 13 of 17

correspondences to all of the Respondents, his position paper, and finally in his reply
there is a single phrase whereby it is written – “Respondent Sukumar is a racist!”

The emails of Complainant to Respondents Reyes and Sukumar wherein he

ventilated his wounded feelings consequent to the kind of image he was made to
appear by a foreign national before fellow Filipinos right in his own homeland when he
was served a notice of 5-day suspension on 21 November 2014 was a legitimate
exercise of rights and prerogatives as a Filipino citizen duly supported by jurisprudence.

In People vs. Chua Hiong, C.A. [51 O.G. 1932], the Supreme Court succinctly
said, to wit:

“Self-defense is man’s inborn right. In a physical assault, retaliation

becomes unlawful after the attack has ceased, because there would be no
further harm to repel.

But that is not the case when it is aimed at a person’s good name. Once
the aspersion is cast its sting clings and the one thus defamed may avail
himself of all necessary means to shake it off. He may hit back with
another libel which, if adequate, will be justified.”

Furthermore, Respondents maliciously imputed against Complainant the offense

of harassment which imputation is false and untrue. Complainant’s resort to the
barangay was again a legitimate exercise of rights and prerogatives as a Filipino citizen.
Complainant merely complied with legal requisites and jurisprudential guide before a
criminal case could be filed in court against Respondent Sukumar, to wit:

A] Administrative Circular No. 14-93 issued by the Supreme Court on July 15,
1993.

B] Section 409 of Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991.

C] Decision of the Supreme Court in Agbayani vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
183623 25 June 2012.

11. In Peñaflor vs. Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing Corporation (G.R. No.

177114, 21 January 2010), the Supreme Court emphasized three basic labor law
principles, to wit:

The first is the settled rule that in employee termination

disputes, the employer bears the burden of proving that the
employees dismissal was for just and valid cause. That Peñaflor
did indeed file a letter of resignation does not help the company’s

Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 14 of 17

 case as, other than the fact of resignation, the company must still
prove that the employee voluntarily resigned. There can be no valid
resignation where the act was made under compulsion or under
circumstances approximating compulsion, such as when an employee’s act
of handing in his resignation was a reaction to circumstances leaving him
no alternative but to resign. In sum, the evidence does not support the
existence of voluntariness in Peñaflor’s resignation. (emphasis supplied)

Another basic principle is that expressed in Article 4 of the

Labor Code all doubts in the interpretation and
that
implementation of the Labor Code should be interpreted in favor
of the workingman. This principle has been extended by
jurisprudence to cover doubts in the evidence presented by the
employer and the employee. As shown above, Peñaflor has, at
very least, shown serious doubts about the merits of the
companys case, particularly in the appreciation of the clinching
evidence on which the NLRC and CA decisions were based. In
such contest of evidence, the cited Article 4 compels us to rule in
Peñaflor’s favor. Thus, we find that Peñaflor was constructively
dismissed given the hostile and discriminatory working environment he
found himself in, particularly evidenced by the escalating acts of
unfairness against him that culminated in the appointment of another
HRD manager without any prior notice to him. Where no less than the
company’s chief corporate officer was against him, Peñaflor had no
alternative but to resign from his employment. (emphasis supplied)

Last but not the least, we have repeatedly given

significance in abandonment and constructive dismissal cases to
the employees reaction to the termination of his employment and
have asked the question: is the complaint against the employer
merely a convenient afterthought subsequent to an
abandonment or a voluntary resignation? We find from the
records that Peñaflor sought almost immediate official recourse
to contest his separation from service through a complaint for
illegal dismissal. This is not the act of one who voluntarily
resigned; his immediate complaints characterize him as one who
deeply felt that he had been wronged.” (emphasis supplied)

12. At length, other than the self-serving allegations of Respondents, twisted

narration of facts and their ceaseless painting of a negative picture that stretch up to
and cuts into the moral fiber of the illegally and constructively dismissed Complainant,
Respondents have not substantially discharged its burden of proving that:

Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 15 of 17

 A] Complainant’s resignation was voluntary;
B] Complainant’s suspension was legal; and
C] The amount Php14,738.69 withheld from Complainant’s salaries were valid
exercise of management prerogative.

Complainant firmly believed that the Honorable Labor Arbiter will see through
Respondents’ false propaganda and will not be misled into believing their lies as against
Complainant’s pristine record of eight long and dedicated years of service in Sitel
Philippines. It bears stressing that Respondents’ drama of intrigues and persecution
continuously bring untold sufferings to Complainant and his three dependent children.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby respectfully prayed that

judgment be rendered in favor of the Complainant and against the Respondents
declaring Complainant’s dismissal illegal and ordering Respondents to jointly and
severally pay Complainant the following:

1) Full back wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time Complainant was illegally dismissed on 8 December
2014 up to the time of the final resolution of the instant case (Please see Annex “EE” of
Complainant’s Position Paper for monthly salary and other benefits computation);

2) Separation pay amounting to one month pay for every year of service starting
on the date Complainant was hired on 26 October 2006 up to the final resolution of the
instant case;

3) Php14,738.69 representing payment for the illegally withheld wages;

4) Php5,725.19 representing payment for the five (5) days of illegal suspension;

5) Php500,000 representing moral damages;

6) Php500,000 representing nominal damages;

7) Php500,000 representing exemplary damages; and

8) Attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total judgment award.

Finally, Complainant respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be
deemed just and equitable under the premises.

Bocaue, Bulacan for Quezon City, Metro Manila, September 5, 2015.

Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 16 of 17

Complainant’s Rejoinder Page 17 of 17