1

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR AND RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

_____ DIVISION

ROMINARIO AGONOY BAYSAC

Complainant-Appellant,

-versus- LAC No. ______________________

NLRC NCR Case No. 05-05994-16

ENRIQUEZ SECURITY
SERVICES, INC., ELENA R.
ENRIQUEZ
Respondents-Appellees.
x------------------------------------------------------x

COUNSEL’S ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL, most respectfully avers to this

Honorable Commission that:
1. He is respectfully entering his appearance as counsel for
complainant ROMINARIO AGONOY BAYSAC and ;

2. As such counsel, all notices, orders, resolutions and

decisions issued in the above entitled case be furnished to him at the
name and address stated below:
PRAYED
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the Entry of
Appearance as counsel for complainant be ADMITTED, NOTED and
judiciously considered by this Honorable Office.
LOMABAO GAN CARRILLO PASANA & ASSOCIATES

ATTY. DOROTEO MIGUEL S. CARRILLO

 2

Counsel for the Complainant-Appellant

Roll of Attorney No. 33835
PTR No. 3121335, Quezon City, 01-10-17
IBP OR No. 1055818, Pasig City, 01-03-17
MCLE Compliance No. IV-OO1O775
10 Goldland Mansions, 5th Avenue, Cubao, QC
CP No. 0918-888-3380/ 02-806-9680

Copy furnished:

ATTY. ELENA R. ENRIQUEZ

Counsel for Respondents
ENRIQUEZ SECURITY SERVICES, INC.
30 Cetacio St., Barangay Siena, 1114, Quezon City

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR AND RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City
 3

_____ DIVISION

ROMINARIO AGONOY BAYSAC

Complainant-Appellant,

-versus- LAC No. ______________________

NLRC NCR Case No. 05-05994-16

ENRIQUEZ SECURITY
SERVICES, INC., ELENA R.
ENRIQUEZ
Respondents-Appellees.
x------------------------------------------------------x

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Complainant-Appellant ROMINARIO AGONOY BAYSAC, by

counsel, most respectfully gives notice that he is appealing to the
National Labor Relations Commission the Decision of the Honorable
Labor Arbiter JOANNE G. HERNANDEZ-LAZO, dated November
29, 2016 of the above-captioned case a copy of which was received by
complainant-appellant on February 9, 2017.

Copies of the Memorandum of Appeal, Verification, and

Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, Proof of Payment of the Appeal
Fee are attached herein.

Respectfully submitted.

Quezon City, February 20, 2017.

LOMABAO GAN CARRILLO PASANA & ASSOCIATES

ATTY. DOROTEO MIGUEL S. CARRILLO

Counsel for the Complainant-Appellant
Roll of Attorney No. 33835
PTR No. 3121335, Quezon City, 01-10-17
IBP OR No. 1055818, Pasig City, 01-03-17
MCLE Compliance No. IV-OO1O775
 4

10 Goldland Mansions, 5th Avenue, Cubao, QC

CP No. 0918-888-3380/ 02-806-9680

Copy furnished:
ATTY. ELENA R. ENRIQUEZ
Counsel for Respondents
ENRIQUEZ SECURITY SERVICES
30 Cetacio St., Barangay Siena, 1114, Quezon City

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

This is to certify that a copy of this pleading was filed with this
Honorable Commission and sent to the other parties by registered mail
due to lack of necessary personnel to effect filing and service by hand.

ATTY. DOROTEO MIGUEL S. CARRILLO

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR AND RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

_____ DIVISION

ROMINARIO AGONOY BAYSAC

Complainant-Appellant,

-versus- LAC No. ______________________

NLRC NCR Case No. 05-05994-16
 5

ENRIQUEZ SECURITY
SERVICES, INC., ELENA R.
ENRIQUEZ
Respondents-Appellees.
x------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL

Complainant-Appellant ROMINARIO AGONOY BAYSAC, by

undersigned counsel, most respectfully appeals to the National Labor
Relations Commission the Decision of the Honorable Labor Arbiter
JOANNE G. HERNANDEZ-LAZO, dated November 29, 2016 of the
above-captioned case a copy of which was received by complainant-
Appellant on February 9, 20171 based upon the following errors as grounds:

I
THERE IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF ABUSE OF DISCRETION
ON THE PART OF THE LABOR ARBITER BY RULING ON THE
ISSUE OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL WHEN THE CASE
FILED BY COMPLAINANT WAS ONLY
FOR MONEY CLAIMS, AND –

II
THERE ARE SERIOUS ERRORS IN THE FINDING OF FACTS
WHICH, IF NOT CORRECTED, WOULD CAUSE GRAVE OR
IRREPARABLE DAMAGE OR INJURY TO THE
COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT

PARTIES
1. Respondent ENRIQUEZ SECURITY SERVICES, INC.,
(“ESSI” for brevity) is a corporation organized and existing under
Philippine laws, and likewise duly licensed to engage in the security
agency business. Individual Respondent ELENA R. ENRIQUEZ, was
sued in his capacity as General Manager of PSSI. Both can be served
with summons, notices and other legal processes of this Honorable
1
Decision of JOANNE G. HERNANDEZ-LAZO, dated November 29, 2016 as Annex “A”
 6

Office at their principal office address located at 30 Cetacio St.,

Barangay Siena, 1114, Quezon City.

2. Complainant ROMINARIO AGONOY BAYSAC was

hired by respondents as Security Guard on April 12, 1997 until he was
relieved on January 26, 20162. He can be served with summons and
other legal processes of this Honorable Office at the herein counsel’s
office address at Unit No. 10, Goldland Mansions, 5 th Avenue, Cubao,
Quezon City, NCR 1109.

TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL

3. Complainant-Appellant received the copy of the decision of
Labor Arbiter Labor Arbiter JOANNE G. HERNANDEZ-LAZO on
February 9, 2017. Under the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedures,
complainant-appellant had ten (10) days from receipt of decision, or
until February 19, 2017. Since February 19, 2017 falls on Sunday, this
appeal is filed on the next working day, which is a Monday, February
20, 2017. Thus, this appeal is made within the allowable period under
said rules.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
4. This is a case for MONEY CLAIMS- underpayment-
Salary/wages, underpayment- overtime pay, underpayment – Holiday
pay, underpayment – 13th month pay, underpayment – Service Incentive
leave pay, non-payment of ECOLA.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
5. Complainant ROMINARIO AGONOY BAYSAC was hired
by respondents as Security Guard. He was last posted at Star Paper
Corporation, Grace Village, Quezon City until he was verbally placed
on off-detail on March 18, 2016. Before his actual assumption of duty
and to confirm his employment, respondents issued him a company ID 3

2
RELIEF ORDER dated January 26, 2016 as Annex “B”
3
Complainant’ Company ID as Annex “B”
 7

and DDO4. Respondents did not issue any pay slips but only deductions
slip5 that show complainant’s deductions every payroll cut-off period.
6. Complainant’ work schedule was from Monday to Sunday 6:00
AM to 6:00 PM on shifting schedule and on holidays. Complainant was
paid his salary in the amount of P380.00 per day at 12 hours duty or
at P31.66 per hour. Complainant was deducted for SSS premium,
Philhealth and Pag-Ibig contributions. He was also deducted for
ABULOY at P50.00 every pay day for the death of a co-employee.
8. On January 26, 2016, after working for more than 19 years of
unblemished work record, he was relieved from post due to an alleged
loss of firearm (Armscor, revolver, SN. 32768), and on the same date,
(January 26, 2016), he was ordered to explain in writing within twenty
(24) hours from receipt of notice6.
9. After giving his explanation and acceptance to pay the cost of
the lost firearm, complainant-appellant received on March 5, 2016 from
respondents a Personal Action Form7. He was ordered to pay the
amount of Php 5,000.00 as ADMINISTRATIVE FINE at PNP
Firearms and Explosive Office and another P15,000.00 for the cost of
REPLACEMENT AND LICENSE/REGISTRATION.
9. After his indefinite relief from his post he repeatedly went back
to respondents’ office to know the status of his case and to get possible
reassignment as promised, but nobody entertained him. After several
follow-ups, both personal and telephone calls, Complainant-Appellant
found his efforts were in vain. Up to this time, no positive response was
given to him by respondents on the status of his case.
10. Feeling aggrieved with the thought of a possible loss of his
job, confused, and having no recourse, complainant lost no time and
filed this formal labor complaint at the NLRC8 on May 19, 2016 for
MONEY CLAIMS.
11. During the mandatory conferences, parties likewise could not
agree, thus they were directed to file their respective position papers.

4
Complainant’s DDO as Annex “C”
5
Complainant’s Deduction Slip as Annex “D”
6
EXPLANATION, request as Annex “E”
7
Personal Action Form as Annex “F”
8
Complainant’ NLRC Pro-forma complaint as Annex “I”
 8

12. On November 29, 2016, the Honorable Labor Arbiter

JOANNE G. HERNANDEZ-LAZO rendered a decision dismissing
with prejudice the above-entitled case, the dispositive portion reads as
follows:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the above-captioned case
filed by complainant Rominario A. Baysac hereby DISMISSED with
prejudice.”
SO ORDERED.”

13. Complainant-Appellant ASSAILS the above decision on the

ground that it was based on erroneous appreciation of facts. The
Honorable Labor Arbiter, with all due respect, committed grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Thus –
THE LABOR ARBITER COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION
WHEN SHE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT FOR MONEY
CLAIMS BY DISCUSSING ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.
DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENTS
14. The errors are related in character and in nature, thus, they are
discussed hereunder in an integrated manner.
THE LABOR ARBITER ERRED AND
ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION WHEN SHE RULED ON
THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL DISMISSAL
WHEN THE CAUSE OF ACTION FILED
BY COMPLAINANT WAS ONLY ON
MONEY CLAIMS AND NOT ON
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.

15. The Honorable Labor Arbiter gravely erred when she rendered
a decision which is not based on the issues raised in the complaint. 9
9
Decision page 1, par. 1
 9

16. In addition, the Labor Arbiter emphasized in her said decision

that complainant was “aggrieved, he commenced the present suit for
illegal dismissal with money claims against respondents on May 19,
2016.10

17. With all due respect, these are erroneous conclusion based on
an erroneous appreciation of facts. Rule V, sec. 7 of the 2005 NLRC
Rules of Procedure:

SECTION 7. SUBMISSION OF POSITION PAPER

AND REPLY. –

a) x x x

b) The position papers of the parties shall cover

only those claims and causes of action raised in
the complaint or amended complaint, excluding
those that may have been amicably settled, and
accompanied by all supporting documents,
including the affidavits of witnesses, which shall
take the place of their direct testimony.

c) x x x

d) In their position papers and replies, the

parties shall not be allowed to allege facts, or
present evidence to prove facts and any cause or
causes of action not referred to or included in the
original or amended complaint or petition.

18. The above-cited provision of the Labor Code was further

explained in Rule V, Section 11 of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure:

SECTION 11. SUBMISSION OF POSITION PAPER

AND REPLY. –

a) x x x

b) x x x
10
Decision page 2, par. 1
 10

c) The position papers of the parties shall cover

only those claims and causes of action stated in
the complaint or amended complaint,
accompanied by all supporting documents,
including the affidavits of witnesses, which shall
take the place of their direct testimony, excluding
those that may have been amicably settled.

19. In the case at bar, the Labor Arbiter, evidently erred when she
ruled the issue on illegal dismissal where it was not raised in the
complaint filed by complainant. What complainant filed only before the
labor arbiter was MONEY CLAIMS and not ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.
However, the Honorable Arbiter extensively discussed the illegal
dismissal in her decision.
20. In the case of Trigementa Chemical Phils. v. Buensalida, 577
Phil. 534, 541–542 (2008) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Third Division]
the high court ruled that parties shall thereafter not be allowed to allege
facts, or present evidence to prove facts, not referred to and any cause
or causes of action not included in the complaint or amended complaint.
21. Clearly, the Honorable Arbiter gravely erred in dismissing this
case with prejudice centering alone on the issue not raised in the
complaint. Worst, complainant was not given opportunity to submit his
position paper. This is a violation of the very foundation of due process
of law.

22. Further, in the case of Sy v. ALC Industries, Inc. 589 Phil.

354 (2008) [Per J. Corona, First Division], the High Court also sets a
standard of due process in labor cases and explained:

Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded fair

and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides
of the controversy.

23. In Mariveles Shipyard Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 461 Phil.

249, 265 (2003) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division], the high court
held:

The requirements of due process in labor cases before a

Labor Arbiter is satisfied when the parties are given the
 11

opportunity to submit their position papers to which they are

supposed to attach all the supporting documents or
documentary evidence that would prove their respective
claims, in the event that the Labor Arbiter determines that no
formal hearing would be conducted or that such hearing was
not necessary.

24. True complainant has been relieved from his post. But the
question is when did this RELIEF ORDER end? There was no clear
directive from respondents about complainant-appellant’s employment
status. Was he, under “suspension or floating status or otherwise?”
With all due respect, complainant-appellant never received any office
memos, warning letters and notices ordering him to report for work or
to respondents’ office or any recall order for that matter.

25. On the contrary, complainant-appellant, despite the pendency

of this case (Money claim) continuously and repeatedly manifested his
desire to resume his work. Unfortunately, respondents only had deaf
ears for his plea of reinstatement. In the case of Oriental Mindoro
Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. NLRC, the high court ruled that an
indefinite suspension is tantamount to constructive dismissal11.

26. For a final argument about the illegal dismissal case even if
this is not one of the causes of action, complainant-appellant has this to
say: As a final note, the Court wants to reiterate that while an employer
has its own interest to protect, and pursuant thereto, it may terminate the
employee for a just cause, such prerogative to dismiss or lay off an
employee must be exercised without abuse of discretion. Its
implementation should be tempered with compassion and
understanding. The employer should bear in mind that, in the execution
of the said prerogative, what is at stake is not only the employee’s
position, but his very livelihood, his very breadbasket. Indeed, the
consistent rule is that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by
the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in
favor of the latter. The employer must affirmatively show rationally
adequate evidence that the dismissal was for justifiable cause. Thus,
when the breach of trust or loss of confidence alleged is not borne by

11
246 SCRA 294
 12

clearly established facts, as in this case, such dismissal on the cited

grounds cannot be allowed.12 (Emphasis supplied)

27. The normal consequences of complainant-appellant’ illegal

dismissal are reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and payment
of back wages computed from the time compensation was withheld up
to the date of actual reinstatement. Where reinstatement is no longer
viable as an option, separation pay equivalent to one month salary for
every year of service should be awarded as an alternative. The payment
of separation pay is in addition to payment of back wages.13 Given the
strained relations between the parties, the award of separation pay, in
lieu of reinstatement, is in order.

28. Finally, on the solidary liability of respondent ELENA R.

ENRIQUEZ for the monetary awards. It is basic that a corporation
being a juridical entity, may act only through its directors, officers and
employees. Obligations incurred by them, acting as such corporate
agents are not theirs but the direct accountabilities of the corporation
they represent. However, in certain exceptional situations, solidary
liability may be incurred by corporate officers. In labor cases for
instance, this Court has held corporate directors and officer’s solidarily
liable with the corporation for the termination of employment of
employees done with malice or bad faith.14
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that
a decision be rendered ordering the reversal of the erroneous decision of
the Labor Arbiter JOANNE G. HERNANDEZ-LAZO dismissing the
complaint of MONEY CLAIM based on other issue (Illegal Dismissal)
and order the respondents-appellees the payment of the following:
1. REINSTATEMENT with full back wages
2. Separation Pay and Monetary Claims by virtue of
mandated government salary increases;
3. Underpayment of salary and other monetary claims,

12
Citing Marival Trading, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 552 Phil. 762, 782 (2007), and
Fujitsu Computer Products Corporation of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 494 Phil. 697, 728 (2005).
13
Golden Ace Builders v. Talde, 634 Phil. 364, 369-370 (2010), citing Macasero v. Southern Industrial
Gases Philippines and/or Lindsay, 597 Phil. 494, 501 (2009).
14
Alba v. Yupangco, G.R. No. 188233, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 503, 507-508, citing MAM Realty
Development Corporation v. NLRC, 314 Phil. 838, 844-845 (1995).
 13

4. Moral damages of Php 100,000 and Exemplary Damages

at Php 100,000
5. Attorney’s Fees equivalent to 10% recoverable damages;
6. Cost of Suit and other Litigation Expenses.
Finally, complainant respectfully prays for such and other reliefs
as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.
Quezon City, February 20, 2017.

ROMINARIO AGONOY BAYSAC

Complainant – Appellant

LOMABAO GAN CARRILLO PASANA & ASSOCIATES

ATTY. DOROTEO MIGUEL S. CARRILLO

Counsel for the Complainant-Appellant
Roll of Attorney No. 33835
PTR No. 3121335, Quezon City, 01-10-17
IBP OR No. 1055818, Pasig City, 01-03-17
MCLE Compliance No. IV-OO1O775
10 Goldland Mansions, 5th Avenue, Cubao, QC
CP No. 0918-888-3380/ 02-806-9680

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. ELENA R. ENRIQUEZ

Counsel for Respondents
ENRIQUEZ SECURITY SERVICES, INC.
30 Cetacio St., Barangay Siena, 1114, Quezon City

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST

NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, ROMINARIO AGONOY BAYSAC, of legal age, Filipino, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state – THAT:
 14

1. I am the complainant in the above-entitled case;

2. I have:
a. Caused the preparation and filing of this APPEAL/ complaint
b. Read the same and the contents therein are true and correct to my personal
knowledge and/or based on authentic records
c. Not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same in the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or the different divisions thereof, nor such
action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or the
different division thereof, or any other tribunal or agency.
3. Should such action or proceeding hereafter come to my knowledge, I undertake to
inform this Honorable Office of the existence thereof within five (5) days.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _________, day of 2017,
Quezon City, Philippines.

ROMINARIO AGONOY BAYSAC

Complainant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ________, day of 2017 in Quezon
City, affiant exhibited to me his _________________________, issued on ____________
issued at ____________________.

Doc. No. ____________;

Page No. ____________;
Book No. ___________;
Series of 2017