Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

National Labor Relations Commission
Regional Arbitration Branch No. X
Cagayan de Oro City

Juan dela Cruz,

Complainant, NLRC RAB X case no.:

-Versus-

ABC Corporation, Represented by

John Smith,
Respondent,
X-----------------------------------------/

POSITION PAPER FOR THE COMPLAINANT

Comes now the Complainant unto the Labor Arbitration office, most
respectfully and humbly submits this position paper, and avers, that:

THE PARTIES

Complainant Juan dela Cruz, is of legal age, Filipino, single, and a

resident of Tablon, Cagayan de Oro city, where he can be served with
notices, orders, resolutions, and other processes of this Honorable
Labor Arbitration Branch.

Respondent ABC Corporation is a Philippine corporation engaged in the

buying and selling of motor vehicles. Its principal office is at Tablon
Cagayan de Oro city, where it may be served with notices, orders,
resolutions, and other processes of this Honorable Labor Arbitration
Branch.

Respondent John Smith is the president of the respondent ABC

Corporation. He is of legal age, American, a resident of Primavera
Residences Unit no. 501-B, Cagayan de Oro city, where he can be served
with notices, orders, resolutions, and other processes of this Honorable
Labor Arbitration Branch.

1
 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. On January 2, 2010, the parties entered into an

Employment Contract for the complainant as the
company’s driver.

2. For a decade, the complainant faithfully did his job; until

3. On February 2, 2020, while coasting the company’s car

along Vamenta Boulevard, he figured into a vehicle
mishap resulting to the total wreck of the said car.

4. On that same day, while the complainant lay in the

hospital bed painfully suffering of the injuries sustained
from the accident, John Smith said to him, in cold blood
without regard of his pitiful present condition, that he
was suspended for 30 days.

5. On February 3, 2020, after receiving such bad news, he

realized his awful situation, hence, prompting for him to
file this complaint.

6. On February 7, 2020, summons was duly served to the

corporation received by John Smith for the mandatory
mediation proceeding.

7. On February 17, 2020, the day of the mediation

proceeding, after a gruelling 10 hour negotiation, the
parties did not settled.

PROPOSED ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

I. Whether or not the complainant was illegally dismissed.

II. Whether or not the complainant is entitled to payment of
backwages and separation pay.

ARGUMENTS

Complainant thru the undersigned counsel respectfully submits

in the affirmative for all the issues.

2
I. The complainant was illegally
dismissed by way of constructive
dismissal.

The complainant in this case was illegally dismissed thru constructive

dismissal. According to the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor
Code of the Philippines, as amended by Department Order No. 9
Series of 1997:

“Section 8. Preventive suspension. The employer may place the

worker concerned under preventive suspension only if his
continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the
life or property of the employer or of his co-workers.”

Clearly, none of the grounds as provided by law are present. The

act of the complainant in crashing the car is an isolated event and
does not in any way constitute that his continued employment
postures a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of
the employer or of his co-workers. Hence, such suspension without
valid grounds is a violation of the employee’s continued
employment amounting to a constructive dismissal.

Further, there is constructive dismissal when there is a cessation of

work because continued employment is rendered impossible,
unreasonable, or unlikely where a demotion in rank or diminution
in pay or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an
employer becomes unbearable to the employee leaving the latter
with no other option but to quit.1

It is apparent from the acts of the respondent of his disdain and

disgusts towards the complainant when the former delivered the
brutal news of suspension to the latter while helplessly grieving in
the hospital bed. Such unbearable inhumane approach leaves the
employee with zero option but to quit.

Moreover, the suspension was arbitrary as there was no written

Notice of Preventive Suspension sent to the complainant neither
did he a chance to explain himself, thus, it is a clear violation of an
employee’s constitutionally guaranteed right to due process.

1
The University of Immaculate Conception v. NLRC, G.R. No. 181146,
January 26, 2011.
3
II. The complainant is entitled to
full backwages and separation
pay.

The complainant was arbitrarily suspended and it subsequently led

to his constructive dismissal, ergo, such entitles him to backwages and
since reinstatement is not possible due to the animosity of the
respondent towards the complainant, the award separation pay is
proper and just. Jurisprudence provides:

“Where the dismissal was without just or authorized cause and

there was no due process, Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended,
mandates that the employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and full backwages, inclusive of
allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed
from the time the compensation was not paid up to the time of actual
reinstatement.”2

Prayer

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that

judgment be issued declaring that the complainant has been illegally
dismissed by way of constructive dismissal by the respondent and that
the complainant is entitled to full backwages, separation pay.

Such other relief just and equitable under the premises is likewise prayed
for.

Respectfully submitted this 25th day of February 2020 in Cagayan de Oro

City, Philippines.

Juan dela Cruz,

Complainant

2
FELIX B. PEREZ and AMANTE G. DORIA vs PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND
TELEPHONE COMPANY and JOSE LUIS SANTIAGO. G.R. No. 152048, April 7, 2009
4
COPY FURNSIHED:

ABC Corporation
Tablon, Cagayan de Oro city

ATTY. ESTELITO MENDOZA

Counsel of the respondents
g/f The Loop, Lim ket kai drive
Cagayan de Oro city

EXPLANATION

Copies of the foregoing Position paper are being filed and serviced
through personal service.

JEFFREY EMMANUEL Q. MABOLOC

Counsel For The Petitioner
Roll Of Attorneys No. 67565
TIN No. 111-222-333-000
IBP Official Receipt No. 1059527; 01.06.17; Mis. Or.
PTR No. 4484122B; 01.05.17; Cagayan de Oro City
MCLE Compliance No. IV-002841; 10.03.11
MCLE Compliance No. V-0000815; July 5, 2013
Contact No: 09273983111
E-mail: jqmaboloc@gmail.com
MABOLOC AND VAMENTA-CABAHUG LAW OFFICE
Office Address:
Avida Towers, Corrales Ave., Cagayan de Oro City