Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Quezon City

SIXTH DIVISION

DINA A. TAMAYO,
Complainant- Appellee;

-versus- NLRC-LAC NO. OFW (L)-01-000063-19

NLRC Case No. RAB III –OFW 01-
26948-18

NETWORK MANAGEMENT
RESOURCES
CORP./ALSHAREEK WORKS
FOR RECRUITING OFFICE ET
AL.
Respondent- Appellant.
x---------------------------x

COMMENT/OPPOSITION
(To the Complainant’s Manifestation with Motion dated July 24, 2019)

Respondent-Appellee, NETWORK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES

CORPORATION, through the undersigned counsel and unto this
Honorable Commission most respectfully submits this
Comment/Opposition and further avers that:

1. On July 30, 2019, herein respondent-appellant through counsel

received a copy of the Complainant’s Manifestation with Motion
dated July 24, 2019. Hence, this Comment/Opposition.
2. It bears stressing that for the third time around the complainant-
appellee blatantly disregarded the NLRC Rules of Procedure, as
amended in an attempt to execute outright the decision in her favor
by filing this instant manifestation with motion;

1|Page
3. The complainant-appellee filed her Manifestation with Motion
maliciously insisting for the third time that this instant case had
become final and executory despite knowledge that the appeal of
the respondent-appellant was perfected. On the assumption that
the appeal was filed a day late, it is a well-settled rule that
technicality of rules is not binding in labor cases;

4. Respondent-appellant properly availed of the remedy under NLRC

Rules of Procedure, as amended when it filed its Motion for
Reconsideration. However, this is now contested by the
complainant-appellee in its Manifestation with Motion dated July
24, 2019 which is seriously misplaced. Hence, it cannot be given
scant consideration;

5. To reiterate, respondent-appellant re-pleads and adopts all

material arguments and allegations in its Comment/Opposition to
the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution dated February 20,
2019 and Comment/Opposition to the Motion to Transmit Records
of Case to the Regional Office For Implementation dated July 15,
2019;
Copies of Comment/Opposition to the Motion for Issuance of Writ
of Execution dated February 20, 2019 and Comment/Opposition to
the Motion to Transmit Records of Case to the Regional Office For
Implementation dated July 15, 2019 are hereto attached and marked
as Annexes “1” and “1-A,”respectively.

6. It is worth emphasizing that the complainant-appellee had been

very vigilant on any technical flaw which she could hurl against the
respondent-appellant. For the record, the former for several times
submitted premature motions and manifestations with motion in
an attempt to immediately execute the judgment award absent
finality of decision;
Copies of Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution, Motion to
Transmit Records of Case to the Regional Office For
Implementation, Manifestations with Motions dated February 11,
2019, February 14, 2019 and July 24, 2019 respectively are hereto
attached and marked as Annexes “2” and series.

7. Further, unlike complainant-appellee, respect for non-technicality

of rules as enunciated in a catena of cases has been observed by the

2|Page
 respondent-appellant. In fact, it did not oppose the complainant’s
motion for extension of time to file reply despite longer period had
elapsed;
Copy of Complainant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply
dated April 21, 2019 is hereto attached and marked as Annex “3.”

8. It is worthy to emphasize and consider that Section 10, Rule VII of

the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure As Amended, technicality of rules
are not binding, to wit:
“SECTION 10. TECHNICAL RULES NOT BINDING.
– The rules of procedure and evidence prevailing
in courts of law and equity shall not be
controlling and the Commission shall use every
and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts
in each case speedily and objectively, without
regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all
in the interest of due process.”

9. Likewise, well-entrenched is the rule that technicality of rules is

relaxed in the interest of substantial justice and fair play. The
Supreme Court had elucidated in this case, to wit: “Indeed, where
as here, there is a strong showing that grave miscarriage of
justice would result from the strict application of the [r]ules,
we will not hesitate to relax the same in the interest of
substantial justice. It bears stressing that the rules of
procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the
attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated
to effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice.
Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn to
be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance,
technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and
not the other way around. Thus, if the application of the rules
would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice. it is
always within our power to suspend the rules, or except a
particular case from its operation.”1

10.Complainant-appellee neither can raise technicality of rules nor

move for execution immediately absent finality of the decision. In a
labor case decided by the Supreme Court it held that, “the rigid
rules of procedure must give way to the demands of

1 ROLANDO DE ROCA VS. DEUARDO C. DABUYAN ET AL, G.R. No. 215281,

March 5, 2018
3|Page
 substantial justice, and that the case must be decided on the
merits. Indeed, the prevailing trend is to accord party litigants
the amplest opportunity for the proper and just
determination of their causes, free from the constraints of
needless technicalities;”2

11. In fine, the above cited manifestation with motion of the

complainant is again a blatant disregard of the NLRC Rules of
Procedure, as amended. The same has no basis both in fact and in
law. Thus, it should not be given scant consideration.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that

the Motion for Reconsideration be GRANTED and the Manifestation
with Motion filed by the Complainant-Appellee be DISMISSED.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are also
prayed for.

August 02, 2019. Makati City for Quezon City.

BAYAUA LAW OFFICE

rd
3 F/ Gonzalez Bldg., 1888 Orense St.,
Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City
Tel. Nos. (02) 881-7629; (02) 750-4439

By:

ATTY. JORICO FAVOR BAYAUA

IBP Life Member Roll No. 09572/01-13-11
PTR No. 733568/01-07-19 / Makati City
Roll No. 47842
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0021401
April 11, 2019
COPY FURNISHED:

2 FROEL M. PU-OD, BOMBOM L. LAYAONA, DANILO L. ORSAL, JOSEPH B.

FLORES AND JOEL M. PU-OD vs. ABLAZE BUILDERS, INC./ROLANDO
PAMPOLINO, G.R. No. 230791, November 20, 2017
4|Page
DINA A. TAMAYO
186 Brgy. Burgos, Sta. Rosa,
Nueva Ecija

ATTY. CENON J. NAVARRO

Espino St. Poblacion,
Pulilan, Bulacan

EXPLANATION

The foregoing Comment/Opposition to the Complainant’s

Manifestation with Motion is being served to the complainant through
registered mail due to distance and lack of manpower.

JORICO F. BAYAUA

5|Page