Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

LUCIANO REBATO GALINDEZ,

Complainant,

-versus- NLRC-NCR Case No. 12-00817-19

MERIDIEN LAND HOLDINGS, INC.

and BENITO A. OBRA,
Respondents.
x----------------------------x

REPLY
(TO THE COMPLAINANT’S POSITION PAPER)

COME NOW, Respondents by counsel before the Honorable Branch most

respectfully submit their Reply to the Complainant’s Position Paper and hereby
allege:

1. Respondents specifically deny complainant’s allegation that he was

constructively dismissed from employment due to forced resignation. The
allegation of forced resignation cannot be legally countenanced considering that
complainant voluntarily executed the letter of resignation in his own handwriting
dispelling any doubt that it was wangled from his unsuspecting mind, therefore,
involuntarily made.

2. Respondents specifically deny the allegation that several days after his
dismissal (which according to the complainant was on October 27, 2019) he and
his immediate supervisor has a heated argument. However, they have resolved
the issues in the Office of the Barangay and patched up their differences. Such
allegation is very clear in its import that complainant resignation was indeed
voluntary made since the heated argument which allegedly he figured with his
immediate supervisor occurred after his alleged dismissal. In short, the heated
argument could have not been factor in the complainant’s obfuscation that led
him to entertain the idea of quitting from employment since it is not yet present
at the time the resignation letter was executed.

3. Complainant’s allegation that the issues involving the heated argument

with the immediate supervisor were patched up in the Office of the Barangay is
another factor that decidedly militated against the involuntariness of the
resignation. Indeed, if the issues were already resolved in the Office of the
Barangay, why did he not formally withdraw his resignation if he really had the
1
intention of not severing his employment. Complainant failure to act on saving his
employment only means that he is resolutely disposed to discontinue the same
for compelling and personal reasons only himself knew.

4. Respondents specifically deny complainant’s allegation that the company

legal officer, Atty. Baculi informed him that it would be better if he and the
company parted ways. Even assuming without granting that Atty. Baculi intimated
the alleged parting of ways, still the timing upon which Atty. Baculi made the
insinuation is after the fact of complainant filing of resignation. The assertion can
be gleaned from the complainant’s allegation that the intimation was made after
they have settled their difference (which according to him at the Barangay Office
after his dismissal). The statement is pregnant with implication that Atty. Baculi
insinuation was done after the fact of resignation and hence, did not taint the
regularity of the resignation.

5. Moreover, complainant allegations that he first hesitated to follow Atty.

Baculi insinuation because his job is his main source of living but he was assured
that he will be given separation pay and that eventually persuaded him to quit his
job is not compelling reason under the law to sacrifice the exigency of service.
What the law contemplates as compelling reason in order that resignation is
considered involuntary is something more than an offer of reward for quitting.
Given the fact that complainant was faced with both administrative and criminal
cases involving defalcation of collected parking fees, the motivation to avoid such
liabilities is more compelling reason to quit employment.

6. Likewise, it must be stressed that Atty. Baculi is only the legal officer of
the company and as such is not the immediate officer of the complainant who
exercises moral suasion over him. The fact that he suggested the parting of ways
between complainant and the company is not directed against the discontinuance
of employment but more as warning of the consequence of complainant’s act in
defrauding the company.

7. Considering that complainant was not constructively dismissed from

employment, his claim for back wages and separation pay cannot prosper due to
lack of factual and legal basis. Under the law, only illegally dismissed employee is
entitled to back wages and separation pay, if reinstatement is no longer feasible.
Regretfully, such circumstances are not obtaining the instant case since
complainant separation from employment was due to voluntary resignation.

8. Similarly, complainant’s claim for 13th month pay for the year 2019
cannot no be granted since complainant agreed to apply the corresponding
amount thereof to his unpaid and outstanding unremitted parking collections in
return for not prosecuting him for criminal and administrative actions.

9. Complainant’s claim for Service Incentive Leave (SIL) cannot likewise be

granted considering that the corresponding amount thereof is already integrated
n the his monthly compensation, thus, explaining its relatively higher amount
than the prevailing minimum wage being implemented in the area for the
2
position of parking attendant. Moreover, the claim cannot be likewise considered
considering that it lacked specification on the dates the benefits were allegedly
not paid.

10. Finally, complainant is not entitled to an award for attorney’s fees

considering that respondents did not commit bad faith and malice in their
dealings with the complainants in so far as the paying of his benefits which under
the Civil Code is the basis for attorney’s fees.

11. Considering the fact that complainants in his position paper failed to
prosecute some of his money claims raised as causes of action in the complaint,
the same by operation of law are deemed to have been abandoned and hence
meriting no award.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that complainant’s position

paper is disregarded for utter lack of merit and judgment is rendered in
accordance with the relief sought in the respondents’ position paper.

Other order and relief, just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, 20 March 2020.

Atty. Rufo B. Baculi, Jr.

Counsel for Respondents
2 nd Floor Spire Building Century City,
Barangay Poblacion, Makati City
PTR No.8126407, Jan. 10, 2020, Makati City
IBP Lifetime No. 00655 Aug. 29, 1996, Q.C.
Attorney Roll No. 27256
MCLE VI No. 0000294 issued July 19, 2019

Copy Furnished:

Atty. Noel V. Neri

Counsel for the Complainant
Pro-Labor Legal Assistance Center
No.33-B E. Rodriguez Sr. Avenue,
Quezon City