Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

________________________________
Complainants,

-versus- NLRC NCR Case No. 00-09-07673-05

________________________________
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------x

REJOINDER
(For The Complainants)
Complainants by themselves and unto this Honorable Office,

respectfully submits this Rejoinder to Respondents Reply and in support

thereof hereby avers:

ISSUE

RESPONDENTS ACT OFF-SETTING

THE ECOLA AND 13TH MONTH PAY BENEFITS OF
THE COMPLAINANTS WITH THE ALLEGED
OBLIGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINANTS HAVE NO
BASIS IN FACT AND IN LAW

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

Respondents has no right to

Off-set the ECOLA and 13th
Month pay benefits of the
Complainants such off-setting
Has no basis in fact and in law;

In the first place, the claim of the Respondent Telecom 1 that

it intentionally failed to deduct the SSS, PHILHEALTH, PAG-IBIG

contributions including tax deductions of the employee is without

factual basis. It is because Respondent in its position paper even

1
failed to prove that indeed complainants salary was not deducted

for the aforesaid contributions. On the contrary, it is the even the

claim and of herein Complainants that their salary was below the

minimum wage prescribed by law. So how can respondent off-set

the aforesaid contributions to the ECOLA and 13TH months pay of

the complainants if it has not even shown proofs that indeed

complainants salary was left not deducted. Likewise how could

respondent further offset the alleged contributions to complainants

salary if in the ultimate analysis it even owe to the complainants for

the balance of the latter’s salary pursuant to the minimum wage

prescribed.

Parenthetically, the claim of the Respondents that they

required herein Complainants to secure their respective Tax

Identification Number and SSS number but herein Complainants

failed to secure the same and consequently did not inform

Respondents about their Tax Identification Number and SSS

number despite repeated demands is a blatant lie. It is because

herein Complainant Santos Tioxon has already an SSS

identification Number as early as year 2003 and he has already a

Tax Identification Number as early as November 19, 1992. To

concretely prove this claim, copies of his SSS identification number

and Tax Identification Number is hereto attached as Annexes “A”

and “B”, “C” and “D” hereof. Hence the claim of the Respondents

that they intentionally did not deduct in the wage of Complainants

his Tax obligations and SSS remittance because of failure of the

complainant to inform them of their tax identification number and

2
SSS number despite repeated demands is blatant lie and a mere

imagined excuse of the Respondents in an attempt to justify their

illegal act of not giving herein complainants their 13 th month pay

and ECOLA benefits.

In the second place, the act of the Respondents in

intentionally not giving the 13th month pay and ECOLA of the of the

Complainants by simply unilaterally offsetting the alleged tax

obligations and SSS contributions of the complainants with the 13 th

month pay and ECOLA of the Complainants have no basis in law.

It is because article 1278 of the Civil and Art 113 of the Labor

Code which was cited by the Respondents as a legal basis in

unilaterally making such offsetting is not applicable with the

factual setting in the instant case.

Article 113 paragraph “c” of the Labor Code which was made

as one of the legal basis of making such offsetting is not applicable

in the instant case. Article 113 paragraph “c” of the Labor Code

provides;

Art. 113. WAGE DEDUCTION--No employer

in his own behalf or in behalf of any person,
shall make any deduction from the wages of
his employees, except
(c) In cases where the employer is
authorized by law or regulation issued by the
secretary of Labor. (Emphasis Supplied)

As stated above, the aforequoted provision is not squarely

applicable in the instant case. It is because the aforequoted

provision authorizes the employer to deduct an amount in the wage

of an employee. It refers to deduction in the wage not to 13th month

3
pay or ECOLA. Respondents should have realized that there is a

whale of difference between a wage and 13th month pay or ECOLA.

A 13th pay is not part or included in the salary or wage of an

employee. Henceforth, herein Respondents has no basis in law to

make such offsetting and unilaterally not giving the complainants

there 13th month pay.

Parenthetically, Respondents could not also invoked Article

1278 of the Civil Code as the said Article is not squarely applicable

in the instant case. Article 1278 of the Civil Code provides as

follows;

Article 1278. Compensation shall take place

when two persons, in their own right are
creditors and debtors of each other.
(Emphasis Supplied)

In the instant case, Respondents is not a creditor of the

complainants and vice versa Complainants is not debtors of the

Respondents. It is because assuming arguendo that indeed herein

Complainants did not pay their taxes then herein Complainants

owed tax obligations to the government and not to the

Respondents, hence it is the government who is the creditor and

complainants as the debtor. On the contrary, herein Respondents

is not the creditor of the Complainants and vice versa

Complainants is not a debtor of the Respondents, hence

Respondents could not invoked Article 1278 of the Civil Code as

said provision is not squarely applicable with the facts in the

instant case as said article applies only when the parties are

creditors and debtors at its others.

4
 In any event, the burden of proof to clearly show that indeed

herein complainant is not entitled to his monetary claims belongs

to the employer and not to the employee. In the instant case,

respondent clearly failed to justify and show proof that herein

complainants is not entitled to their monetary claims. On the

contrary and what is clear as admitted itself by the respondents

their position paper, is the fact that it intentionally did not give the

complainants their ECOLA and 13th month pay.

WHEREFORE, premises considered it is most respectfully

prayed that herein respondents be ordered to pay complainants the

total amount of their money claims computed from the time he

started working up to the time they were terminated from work.

Other relief just and equitable under the premises are

likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted