CITIBANK N.A. v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and

ROSITA TAN PARAGAS
563 SCRA 87 (2008)

FACTS: 

Rosita Tan Paragas (Paragas) worked as a filing clerk of Citibank, N.A. (Citibank) for eighteen (18) years.
She was terminated by Citibank for serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect
of duties and gross inefficiency. Paragas filed a complaint for illegal dismissal which was dismissed for
lack of merit, finding that the dismissal on the ground of work inefficiency was valid. The National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter with the modification that
Paragas should be paid separation pay as a form of equitable relief in view of her length of service with
Citibank. 

Paragas filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the NLRC Resolution. She no longer challenged her
dismissal on the ground of work inefficiency, but prayed that Citibank be ordered to pay her the Provident
Fund benefits under its retirement plan for which she claimed to be qualified pursuant to Citibank’s
Working Together Manual. The said manual provides that an employee discharged for reasons other the
misconduct will be paid a percentage of her share in the Fund. 

Finding that Paragas’ dismissal was for causes other than misconduct, the NLRC granted Paragas’
Motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit and affirmed in to the
challenged NLRC Resolution. 

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the act of the petitioner a just cause for her dismissal due to serious misconduct.

HELD: 

Paragas indeed prayed for "other just and equitable relief," but the same may not be interpreted so
broadly as to include even those which are not warranted by the factual premises alleged by a party. Thus
the January 24, 2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals correctly stated: "It has been ruled in this
jurisdiction that the general prayer for 'other reliefs' is applicable to such other reliefs which are warranted
by the law and facts alleged by the respondent in her basic pleadings and not on a newly created issue." 

Paragas’ assertion that she mentioned the matter regarding the Provident Fund even prior to her Motion
for Partial Reconsideration — on page 14 of her position paper and again on pages 2 and 7 of her "Notice
of Appeal and Appeal Memorandum" — is unavailing. 

Her "Notice of Appeal and Appeal Memorandum" was filed after she had already submitted her position
paper. Thus, any mention of the Provident Fund therein would fail to adhere to the above-ruling in
Mañebo, the thrust of which was precisely that all facts, evidence, and causes of action should already be
proffered in the position papers and the supporting documents thereto, not in any later pleading. 

As to Paragas’ position paper, there was only the mere mention of "Provident A & C," with the
corresponding amount of P1,086,335.43, among the actual damages that she was allegedly suffering
from her continued severance from employment. Paragas made no attempt to define what this "Provident
A & C" was, nor offer any substantiation for including it to be among her actual damages. She did not
even hint how "Provident A & C" had a bearing on retirement benefits. Thus, while Paragas did refer to
the Provident Fund in her position paper, such reference was too vague to be a basis for any court or
administrative body to grant her retirement benefits. 

Paragas justifies her failure to claim for retirement benefits before the labor arbiter by alleging that it
would be inconsistent with her prayer for reinstatement. Paragas, however, could have easily claimed
such benefits as an alternative relief. In any event, Paragas is not entitled to retirement benefits as this
Court finds that she was validly dismissed for serious misconduct and not merely for work inefficiency.