Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch XII
General Santos City

PRINCESS CARAMPATAN, SWEET NLRC RAB CASE NO. SRAB XII-

JENIEZA L. CARAMPATAN, AND 10-00386-19
EDISON MALADIAN
Complainant,

-versus- -for-

LIMOR POWER CYCLE &/OR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL, WITH

MICHAEL LIM - Owner MONEY CLAIMS
Respondent,
X--------------------------------------X

POSITION PAPER
(For the Complainants)

COMES NOW, Complainants PRINCESS CARAMPATAN, SWEET

JENIEZA L. CARAMPATAN, AND EDISON MALADIAN, through the
undersigned counsel in the above-entitled case and unto this
Honorable National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) - Regional
Arbitration Branch (RAB) XII, most respectfully submits this position
paper, by averring that:

I. PREFATORY STATEMENT

It is appalling to know that even in this age of rapid

modernization, where basic labor law doctrines and principles are
considered part of the daily module of every firm, company or
business, yet a disturbing number of employers still proceed with the
practice of wrongful dismissal, one that is particularly made with
evident bad faith and retaliation. In the midst of this injustice, many
employees are left without recourse, but to yield to the vagaries of
their abusive employers. However, in this jurisdiction, this arbitrary
practice of wrongful dismissal shall not be allowed to pass

Page 1 of 20
unchallenged. This present complaint for Illegal dismissal shall serve
not only as a challenge, but as a refuge for all victims of unjust labor
practice.

II. THE PARTIES

1. Complainants PRINCESS CARAMPATAN, SWEET JENIEZA

L. CARAMPATAN, AND EDISON MALADIAN, are Filipino Citizens and
of legal age who may be served with notice at Purok 1, Molo, Libi,
Malapatan, Sarangani Province, hereinafter referred to as the
Complainants for brevity;

2. Respondent LIMOR POWER CYCLE is engaged in the

business of retailing and selling of Motor Parts, across different parts
of the country and is owned and managed by Michael Lim, whose
office is located at North Osmena, Brgy. Dadiangas, General Santos
City, hereinafter referred to as the Respondent for brevity;

III. MATERIAL DATES

3. The Honorable NLRC-Sub Arbitration Branch XII

conducted a mandatory conference on 22 October 2019. However,
when the parties failed to settle, they were required to submit a
position paper within 10 days from the conduct of the said
mandatory conference. Hence, the last day for filing this position
paper was on 1 November 2019. However, considering that 1
November 2019 was a holiday, herein complainants have until the
next working day which is 4 November 2019 to file their position
paper. Hence, this Position Paper is filed on time.

IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

4. In addition, this is a case for both Actual and Constructive

Illegal Dismissal with money claims involving non-payment of salary
which includes underpayment of salary, non-payment of overtime
pay, holiday pay, thirteenth month pay, service incentive leave and
night shift differential filed by the complainants against the
respondent.

Page 2 of 20
 V. FACTS OF THE CASE

For complainant Princess Carampatan – Actual Dismissal

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

5. Sometime on March 2016, Complainant Princess Carampatan

was hired by the Respondent Limor Power Cycle as a Sales Lady for
a scanty salary of One Hundred Sixty Six Pesos (P166.00) per day.
Later on, Complainant Princess Carampatan was assigned as a
checker of Respondent’s business, but for the same salary. As a
checker, her job includes the following:

 From the warehouse, complainant receives several boxes

(around 300 boxes) stored with motor parts from the pull-
outer. As part of the inventory of the owner, each box has
a corresponding loading number and also inside each box
there is a corresponding checklist of items stored within
it;
 After receiving from the pull-outer the boxes filled with
motor parts, she, together with the helper and driver load
the boxes to a Forward Truck or what they call as a
“Panel”;
 Then, complainant travels from General Santos City to
different routes to deliver pre-ordered motor parts to
their customers. Complainant takes the following routes:

At 4 O’clock in the morning they start to

travel from Digos-Kidapawan-Kabacan
route. They usually arrived from Gensan to
Digos by 9 o’clock in the morning, and upon
arrival they deliver and unload the pre-
ordered motor parts to their customers.
Afterwards, they travel again from Digos to
Kidapawan and arrive by 12 noon. After
unloading the pre-ordered motor parts, they
immediately take their lunch at the fastest
possible time in order to avoid delays. Then,
they travel again from Kidapawan to
Kabacan from 1 o’clock in the afternoon to 2
o’clock in the afternoon. In the ordinary
Page 3 of 20
 course of their task, they usually finish their
delivery by 3:30 in the afternoon and then
travel back to General Santos City.
Complainants and her companions would
arrive at their Main Office in GenSan by 7
o’clock in the evening;
 The next days, complainant and her
companions prepare for another Route in
Tacurong-Isulan-Mlang, Valencia-
Malaybalay and Zamboanga-Antipas;

6. Many times, Complainant Princess Carampatan had to spend

the night in some routes, all without lodging allowance and night
shift differential. The only amount she receives is a meager P40 peso
for her breakfast and lunch;

7. Sometime in 2017, Complainant Princess Carampatan was

deployed as an Agent of Limor Power Cycle. It was explained to her
by the management that her experience, skill and knowledge with
the nitty-gritty of the job will help the Respondent raise their sales;

8. Thus, as an agent, complainant Princess Carampatan

performed the following tasks:

 Receives from the pull outer motor parts which are placed
in boxes. These boxes have corresponding loading
number, checklist and master list and are carefully
counted and inspected by the management;
 Stores the boxes to the forward truck or panel;
 Delivers to their customers;
 Conducts sales talk and demonstration;
 Remits the amount of the sale via personal bank
transaction and reports the same with corresponding
supporting papers to her employer (Moreover,
complainant is required to attach the bank receipts to the
company’s log book.)

9. As an agent, complainant was only receiving a salary of Three

Hundred Pesos (P300.00) from year 2018-2019. Worse, every time
complainant and her work mates would take a leave for a valid

Page 4 of 20
reason such as sickness or emergency or even during holidays, they
are charged for a salary deduction of Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00)
aside from having no salary for that particular day. Simply stated, for
every absence, complainant and her work mates would lose an
amount of Six Hundred Pesos (P600.00). All these unauthorized and
illegal deductions were recorded in Respondent’s Logbook. Moreover,
herein Respondent Limor Power Cycle never provided individual pay
slips to its employees. A mere master list or a General Pay Slip was
only shown to the employees which requires their signatures to be
affixed upon receipt of their respective salary. The mere fact that the
same is not signed by the employer holds no water as the same
document is a faithful reproduction and that technicalities, when it
deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great
hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from
courts. To prove the fact of the foregoing, attached herewith as
Annex “A” and Annex “B” are the General Pay Slips issued by
Respondent and the document showing illegal deductions
committed by herein respondent;

10. In addition, herein complainant and the rest of the

workers of Limor Power Cycle were made to suffer a nine-hour’ work,
that is from 8 o’clock in the morning to 6 o’clock in the evening, from
Monday to Saturday, all without payment of overtime pay;

11. However on 26 September 2019, when complainant

Princess Carampatan and her team were on their way to Cagayan,
the Forward Truck which they were riding had an engine failure. The
driver of the Forward Truck or Panel parked the same in a safe road
and called a mechanic to repair the panel. When the mechanic
finished the repair, he informed the team of complainant Princess
Carampatan not to drive any farther the forward truck because it has
a loose break. Complainant Princess Carampatan informed his
employer - Michael Lim about the incident and complainant was
instructed by the latter to leave the Forward Truck since a Stand-by
Truck was on its way to the rescue of the complainant and her team.
When the Stand-by Truck arrived, complainant as instructed
by her employer transferred the items and boxes from the
damaged truck to the stand-by truck. Thus, contrary to the
allegations of the Respondent, no item or motor parts were
left as they were safely transferred to the stand-by truck;

Page 5 of 20
 12. On afternoon of 26 September 2019, complainant
Princess Carampatan asked permission from his employer if she could
go home to GenSan as she was not feeling well due to severe tooth
ache. To prove the fact of the foregoing, Attached as Annex “C” and
Annex “D” are the Dental Certificate and Prescription issued to
Complainant by Dr. Marites C. Dypiangco on 27 September 2019. The
said Dental Certificate indicates:

“Check up tooth #36 for extraction. Medications

prescribed.”

13. On 28 September 2019, Complainant Princess

Carampatan reported to work, however on that day she received a
Notice of Termination. On the same day, without giving her the
opportunity to explain, complainant Princess Carampatan was
arbitrarily dismissed from employment;

On the other hand, the complainants Sweet Jenieza L.

Carampatan and Edison Maladian were constructively
dismissed.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

14. Complainants Sweet Jenieza L. Carampatan and Edison

Maladian were hired by Respondent as Sales Lady/ Pull outer and
Stockman, respectively;

15. Complainant Sweet Jenieza Carampatan was hired by

respondent on July 2015 as a Sales Lady for a salary of One Hundred
Sixty Six Pesos (P166.00). In 2019, complainant Sweet Jenieza L.
Carampatan was only receiving a salary of Three Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P300.00) per day;

16. On the other hand, complainant Edison Maladian was

hired by Respondent as a stock-man on 5 October 2017. In hyear
2019, Edison Maladian was only receiving a salary of Two Hundred
Eight Pesos (P288.00) per day for a nine hours of work;

17. Complainants were also made to suffer work from 8

o’clock in the morning to six o’clock in the evening of Mondays to
Saturdays, without payment of overtime pay;

Page 6 of 20
 18. Herein complainants, aside from not being properly paid
were also subjected to the same unauthorized or illegal deduction in
their salary even for a valid absence;

19. Thus, complainants protested their working conditions to

the Owner of Limor Power Cycle, however all of their pleas fell on
deaf ears;

20. Thus, as a result of their unfavorable work conditions

they, herein complainants were forced to leave their job and formally
lodged a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) –SubRegional Arbitration Branch (RAB) XII;

21. However, during mandatory mediation conferences, still the

parties failed to settle amicably, thus they were required to submit
their respective position papers within ten days from receipt of the
said order;

22. Hence, this position paper;

VI. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

A. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT PRINCESS CARAMPATAN

WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.

B. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANTS SWEET JENIEZA L.

CARAMPATAN AND EDISON MALADIAN WERE
CONSTRUCTIVELY DISMISSED.

C. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANTS ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR

MONETARY CLAIMS.

Page 7 of 20
 VII. ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

As to the first issue:

A. COMPLAINANT PRINCESS CARAMPATAN WAS

ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.

23. Here, the fact of dismissal was already established when

herein respondent admitted during the mandatory conference that it
terminated complainant from her employment due to several
reasons. In its immediate Notice of Termination, respondent averred
in verbatim the following:

********************************************************

MEMORANDUM

DATE: 28 SEPTEMBER 2019

TO: PRINCESS CARAMPATAN

Ang Management nagapahibalo sa imong nahimong

pagsupak sa balaod sa mga polisiya na gipasabot sa
tanang trabahante.

1. Abandonment

September 26, 2019 sa kaadlawon gibayaan ang wind van

na sakyanan puno og stocks sa delikado na lugar og wala
mananghid sa opisina o sa tag-iya na wala na mibalik sa
imong trabaho…..

2. Causing loss or losing accountability

Nawalaan og mga stocks sa sulod sa wind van

Naguba ang sakyanan na wala giatiman

Daghang na saying na panahon sa adlaw og oras para

mamaligya tungod sa pag biya sa trabaho

3. Pretending to be sick

Ang rason gibyaan ang obligasyon tungod ang bag-ang

sa ngipon

Page 8 of 20
 4. Posting of constituting threats.

Nag post og dile maayo sa social media (FB) na dile sya

mahadlok

5. Insubordination gross insult or will full disrespect

of the owner.

Ang kinaiya nagpasabot na wala nag pakita og respeto sa

tag iya nganong gibuhat kini nga walay rason sa imong
pagpanarbaho og sa dakong kantedad na imong gibyaan.
Gihatagan og dakong pagsalig us aka trabahante;

Sugod karong adlawa sa September 28, 2019 sa

pagdawat nimo aning sulata o memorandum, wala mag
duha-duha sa pagpahawa (Termination) sa imong
Trabaho dire sa Limor Power Cycle.

Hinaut imo kining nasabtan.

********************************************************

24. The respondent’s reprehensible practice of automatically

terminating his employees from service without proper notice and
observance of substantive and procedural due process should not be
countenanced. It is not trite to remind herein respondent that he is
no longer living in the ancient times where the powerful could simply
impose their caprice at will. It is high time that employers of the
same character as herein respondent should be educated of our
relevant labor law principles and doctrines;

25. On the issue of whether or not respondent followed the

procedural due process required by the law in terminating an
employee, herein complainant argues otherwise;

26. In the case of King of Kings Transport, Inc. v.

Mamac1, the Supreme Court explained that the requirement of a
hearing or conference is an indispensable element of procedural due
process. The High Court further elucidated that:

“Due process under the Labor Code involves two

aspects: first, substantive - the valid and authorized causes of
termination of employment under the Labor Code; and second,
procedural the manner of dismissal. In the present case, the CA
1
G.R. No. 166208, June 29, 2007, 526 SCRA 116, 123-127.

Page 9 of 20
affirmed the findings of the labor arbiter and the NLRC that the
termination of employment of respondent was based on a just
cause. This ruling is not at issue in this case. The question to be
determined is whether the procedural requirements were
complied with.

Art. 277 of the Labor Code provides the manner of

termination of employment, thus:

Art. 277. Miscellaneous Provisions. x x x

(b) Subject to the constitutional right of

workers to security of tenure and their right to be
protected against dismissal except for a just and
authorized cause without prejudice to the
requirement of notice under Article 283 of this
Code, the employer shall furnish the worker whose
employment is sought to be terminated a written
notice containing a statement of the causes for
termination and shall afford the latter ample
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with
the assistance of his representative if he so desires
in accordance with company rules and regulations
promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the
Department of Labor and Employment. Any
decision taken by the employer shall be without
prejudice to the right of the worker to contest the
validity or legality of his dismissal by filing a
complaint with the regional branch of the National
Labor Relations Commission. The burden of
proving that the termination was for a valid or
authorized cause shall rest on the employer.

Accordingly, the implementing rule of the aforesaid

provision states:

SEC. 2. Standards of due process;

requirements of notice. In all cases of termination
of employment, the following standards of due
process shall be substantially observed:

1. For termination of employment based on

just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Code:

Page 10 of 20
 (a) A written notice served on the employee
specifying the ground or grounds for termination,
and giving said employee reasonable opportunity
with which to explain his side.

(b) A hearing or conference during which

the employee concerned, with the assistance of
counsel if he so desires is given opportunity to
respond to the charge, present his evidence, or
rebut the evidence presented against him.

(c) A written notice of termination served

on the employee, indicating that upon due
consideration of all the circumstances, grounds
have been established to justify his termination.

In case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be

served on the employees last known address.

To clarify, the following should be considered in

terminating the services of employees:

(1) The first written notice to be served on the employees

should contain the specific causes or grounds for termination
against them, and a directive that the employees are given the
opportunity to submit their written explanation within a
reasonable period. Reasonable opportunity under the
Omnibus Rules means every kind of assistance that
management must accord to the employees to enable them to
prepare adequately for their defense. This should be
construed as a period of at least five (5) calendar days from
receipt of the notice to give the employees an opportunity to
study the accusation against them, consult a union official or
lawyer, gather data and evidence, and decide on the defenses
they will raise against the complaint. Moreover, in order to
enable the employees to intelligently prepare their
explanation and defenses, the notice should contain a detailed
narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as
basis for the charge against the employees. Lastly, the notice
should specifically mention which company rules, if any, are
violated and/or which among the grounds under Art. 282 is
being charged against the employees.

Page 11 of 20
 (2) After serving the first notice, the employers should
schedule and conduct a hearing or conference wherein the
employees will be given the opportunity to: (1) explain and
clarify their defenses to the charge against them; (2) present
evidence in support of their defenses; and (3) rebut the
evidence presented against them by the management. During
the hearing or conference, the employees are given the
chance to defend themselves personally, with the assistance of
a representative or counsel of their choice. Moreover, this
conference or hearing could be used by the parties as an
opportunity to come to an amicable settlement.

(3) After determining that termination of employment is

justified, the employers shall serve the employees a written
notice of termination indicating that: (1) all circumstances
involving the charge against the employees have been
considered; and (2) grounds have been established to justify
the severance of their employment

In the instant case, KKTI admits that it had failed to

provide respondent with a charge sheet. However, it maintains
that it had substantially complied with the rules, claiming that
respondent would not have issued a written explanation had he
not been informed of the charges against him.”

27. All these rigid procedural requirement provided for by the

law was not observed by the respondent. Herein Respondent did not
comply with the twin notice requirement;

28. If we dissect the notice given by the Respondent, it could

be interpreted as a notice of termination. Respondent did not give
complainant Princess Carampatan the chance to be heard and to
explain her side;

29. Complainant argues that the accusations against her are

false. On 26 September 2019, when complainant Princess
Carampatan and her team were on their way to Cagayan, the
Forward Truck which they were riding had an engine failure.
According to complainant, the driver of the Forward Truck or Panel
parked the same in a safe road and called a mechanic to repair the
panel. When the mechanic finished the repair, he informed the team
of complainant Princess Carampatan not to drive any farther the
forward truck because it has a loose break. Complainant Princess

Page 12 of 20
Carampatan informed his employer - Michael Lim about the incident
and complainant was instructed by the latter to leave the Forward
Truck since a Stand-by Truck was on its way to the rescue of the
complainant and her team. When the Stand-by Truck arrived,
complainant as instructed by her employer transferred the items and
boxes from the damaged truck to the stand-by truck. Thus, contrary
to the allegations of the Respondent, no item or motor parts were
left as they were safely transferred to the stand-by truck;

30. Complainant also argues that she was not pretending to be

sick on 26 September 2019 as alleged by respondent. In support
thereof, complainant attached her Dental Certificate and Prescription
issued to Complainant by Dr. Marites C. Dypiangco on 27 September
2019. The said Dental Certificate indicates:

“Check up tooth #36 for extraction. Medications

prescribed.”

31. Thus, considering that the entirety of the circumstances

the dismissal was, without an iota of doubt illegal and even more
attended with evident bad faith. Therefore, herein complainant is
entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other
privileges, and to the payment of her full backwages, inclusive of
allowances, and to her other benefits or their monetary equivalent,
computed from the time her compensation was withheld from her up
to the time of her actual reinstatement;

32. However, considering that complainant can no longer be

reinstated, she is therefore still entitled to separation pay as a
consequence of the illegal dismissal. Complainant is considered as
regular worker and enjoys the security of tenure as provided under
Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 34 of Republic
Act No. 6715;

33. Separation pay is intended to provide the employee

money during the period in which he will be looking for another
employment. While, backwages, on the other hand, are granted on
grounds of equity for earnings lost by an employee due to his illegal
dismissal;

34. Complainant as regular employee of the respondent is

entitled to receive separation pay equivalent to one month salary for
every year of service in lieu of the reinstatement;
Page 13 of 20
 35. Thus, based on the foregoing the complainant is entitled
to separation pay computed as follows:

 March 2016 to 28 September 2019 = 3.5 years

 P8,086 (average monthly salary) x 3.5 years of service = P28, 301
(Separation Pay)

As to the second issue:

B. COMPLAINANTS SWEET JENIEZA L. CARAMPATAN

AND EDISON MALADIAN WERE CONSTRUCTIVELY
DISMISSED.

36. In Morales vs Harbour Center Port Terminal, Inc. 2, the

Supreme Court explained and enumerated the indices of constructive
dismissal:

“Constructive dismissal exists where there is

cessation of work because “continued employment is
rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an
offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in
pay” and other benefits. Aptly called a dismissal in
disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to
appear as if it were not, constructive dismissal may,
likewise, exist if an act of clear discrimination,
insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so
unbearable on the part of the employee that it could
foreclose any choice by him except to forego his
continued employment.”

37. Thus, on the basis of the above-mentioned jurisprudence,

complainant cannot be faulted for foregoing their continued
employment with their employer. It is daylight clear from the
circumstances that complainants were made to work under
unbearable and horrible working environment due to under payment
of their salary, compulsion to render nine-hour work per day without
payment of premium for overtime pay and other gross violations of
labor law standards;

2
(G.R. No. 174208, January 25, 2012)

Page 14 of 20
 38. The acts of herein respondent in placing extraordinary
and unreasonable work demands on his employees to obtain their
resignation, constituted constructive dismissal;

39. There is constructive dismissal in this case because a

reasonable person in the complainants’ position would have found
the working conditions intolerable. Moreover the conduct that
constituted deprivation on the complainants’ benefits created the
intolerable working conditions; and complainants involuntary
cessation from work was due to the intolerable working conditions;

40. Thus, it can be conclusively presumed that complainants’

severance from the company was not of their own making and
therefore amounted to an illegal termination of employment;

41. Thus, based on the foregoing the complainants are

entitled to separation pay computed as follows:

Complainant Sweet Jenieza Carampatan:

 July 2015 to September 2019 = 4.16 years

 P8,086 (average monthly salary) x 4.16 years of service =
P33,637.76 (Separation Pay)

Complainant Edison Maladian

 5 October 2017 to September 2019 = 1.91 years

 P8,086 (average monthly salary) x 1.91 years =
P15,444.26 (Separation pay)

C. COMPLAINANTS IS ENTITLED TO THE

PAYMENT OF HIS UNPAID SALARY, 13TH MONTH
PAY, SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE AND ATTORNEY’S
FEES

B.1 On the unpaid salary:

42. Complainants are also entitled to receive payment for

underpayment of salary due to respondent’s non-compliance with the
Current Daily Minimum Wage Rates in Region XII, SOCCSKSARGEN
Per Wage Order No. RB XII-20, Effective: 11 May 2018;

Page 15 of 20
 43. As per inspection of the DOLE, complainants and all the
rest of the employees of the Respondent did not receive their lawful
salary.

 Princess Carampatan

P11 (lacking daily rate) x 26 days work= P286.00 per month x

12 months=P3,432.00 x 3.5 years = P12,012.00
(Underpayment of salary)

 Sweet Jenieza Carampatan

P11 (lacking daily rate) x 26 days work= P286.00 per month x

12 months=P3,432.00 x 4.16 years = P14,277.00
(Underpayment of salary)

 Edison Maladian

P23 (lacking daily rate) x 26 days work= P598.00 per month x

12 months=P37,176.00 x 1.91 years = P13,706.16
(Underpayment of salary)

B.2 On Service Incentive Leave (SIL):

44. Respondent did not provide complainants their SIL as

mandated by Article 95 (Book Three, Title I) of the Labor code, as
implemented by Section 2, Rule V, Book III of the Omnibus Rules.
Thus, every employee who has rendered at least one year of service
is entitled to yearly service incentive leave of five days with pay.
Under the DOLE handbook the computation of the service incentive
leave (SIL) shall be the salary rate at the date of commutation. Thus,
complainants are entitled to a SIL pay computed as follows:

 Princess Carampatan

SIL earned for the period of 3.5 years = 17.5 x P311 daily rate
= P5,442.00 (Unpaid Service Incentive Leave)

 Sweet Jenieza Carampatan

SIL earned for the period of 4.16 years = 20.8 x P311 daily rate
= P6,468.00 (Unpaid Service Incentive Leave)

Page 16 of 20
  Edison Maladian

SIL earned for the period of 1.91 years = 9.55 x P311 daily rate
= P2,970.00 (Unpaid Service Incentive Leave)

B.3 On the unpaid 13th month pay:

45. Under the law, an employee is entitled to 13 th month pay

every end of the year equivalent to his one month salary. However,
in contravention of the law, complainant was not paid his 13 th month
pay for the period of his employment with the respondent. Thus,
complainant is entitled to 13th month pay computed as follows:

 Princess Carampatan

P8,086 (average monthly rate) x 3.5 years = P28,301 (unpaid

13th month pay)

 Sweet Jenieza Carampatan

P8,086 (average monthly rate) x 4.16 years = P33,637.76 (unpaid

13th month pay)

 Edison Maladian

P8,086 (average monthly rate) x 1.91 years = P15,444.26 (unpaid

13th month pay)

46. On the payment of Overtime Pay, under the law,

work may be performed beyond eight (8) hours a day provided that
the employee is paid for the overtime work, an additional
compensation equivalent to his regular wage plus at least twenty-five
percent (25%) thereof;

47. In this case, complainants and the rest of the employees

of respondent rendered daily service from Monday to Saturday, from
8 o’clock in the morning to 6 o’clock in the evening or for 9 hours.
Complainants, therefore, rendered daily service for an excess of
1hour a day.

Page 17 of 20
  Princess Carampatan

25% of 311 = P77.75 (premium for 1 hour overtime work) x 26

days = 2,021.5 (Unpaid Premium pay for every month) x 12
months = P24, 258 x 3.5 years = P84,903.00 (unpaid
overtime pay)

 Sweet Jenieza Carampatan

25% of 311 = P77.75 (premium for 1 hour overtime work) x 26
days = 2,021.5 (Unpaid Premium pay for every month) x 12
months = P24, 258 x 4.16 years = P100,913 (unpaid
overtime pay)

 Edison Maladian
25% of 311 = P77.75 (premium for 1 hour overtime work) x 26
days = 2,021.5 (Unpaid Premium pay for every month) x 12
months = P24, 258 x 1.91 years = P46,332.78 (unpaid
overtime pay)

48. Labor is property, and as such merits protection. The

right to make it available is next in importance to the rights of life
and liberty. It lies to a large extent at the foundation of most other
forms of property, and of all solid individual and national prosperity. 3

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed based on the foregoing that Judgment be rendered:

a. declaring the complainant to have been

ILLEGALLY DISMISSED;

b. ordering the respondent TO PAY the

complainant the following:

1. Under-payment of salary

2. Unpaid Separation pay

3. Unpaid Service Incentive Leave

4. Unpaid Thirteenth Month

3
Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. (83 US) 36, 127.

Page 18 of 20
 5. Backwages computed from the time his
compensation was withheld up to the
time of his actual reinstatement;

6. Other cost

Complainant pray for such other further relief as may be just

and equitable under the premises.

In Alabel, Sarangani Province, Philippines, 04 November 2019.

Assisted by:

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Sarangani District Office
Alabel, Capitol Complex

NESTONI M. SENARILLOS
Public Attorney I
Roll of Attorney No. 67653
PTR exempt under Section 139 (d) of R.A. 7160
MCLE Compliance Exempt per OCA Cir. No. 76-2008

Copy furnished:

LIMOR POWER CYCLE Registry Receipt No.

Michael Lim _______________________
North Osmena, Brgy. Dadiangas, Date: 04 November 2019
General Santos City

Page 19 of 20
Republic of the Philippines)
Municipality of Alabel ) s.s.
x------------------------------x

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

We Princess Carampatan, Sweet Jenieza Carampatan and Edison

Maladian, of legal age, Filipino, and residents of Purok 1, Molo, Libi, Malapatan,
Sarangani Province, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do
hereby depose and say:

1. We are the complainants in the above-captioned case;

2. We have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Position

Paper and that we have read the same and that all the material
allegations therein are true and correct based on my our personal
knowledge and based on the authenticity/veracity of the
documents which are hereto attached and are in oury custody and
possession;

3. we have not heretofore commenced any action involving the same

or identical issues raised herein either before the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals, the regular courts or before any other
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies; that to the best of our
knowledge there are no other action pending therein; and that we
hereby undertake to inform this Honorable Commission in case a
similar case is filed within five (5) days from receipt of such
information.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We have hereunto set my hand this 04

November 2019 at Alabel, Sarangani Province, Philippines.

Princess Carampatan Sweet Jenieza Edison Maladian

Affiant Carampatan Affiant
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 04 November 2019 in

Alabel, Sarangani Province, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me their
abovementioned competent proofs of identification, known to me to be the same
persons who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to be their
own free act and voluntary deed.

WITNESS MY HAND SEAL.

ATTY. NESTONI M. SENARILLOS

PUBLIC ATTORNEY I
Authority Under Sec. 8 R.A. 9498
ROLL NO. 67653

Page 20 of 20