POSITION PAPER

Position papers shall cover:

1. Simplified issues during the initial conference;

2. Issues and causes of action raised in the submission agreement;
3. Notice to arbitrate or appointments of Voluntary Arbitrator; and
4. Stipulation of facts.
(NCMB GUIDELINES, Rule VI, Sec. 8)

Submission of Position Paper and Reply

The Labor Arbiter shall direct the parties to submit simultaneously their verified position papers with
supporting documents and affidavits, if any, on a date set by the Labor Arbiter within 10 calendar days
from the date of termination of the mediation conference (NLRC RULES, Rule V, Sec. 12 (a)).

No amendment of the complaint or petition shall be allowed after the filing of position papers, unless with
leave of the Labor Arbiter (NLRC RULES, Rule V, Sec. 12 (b)).

NOTE: The simultaneous filing of position papers was suspended under DOLE En Banc Resolution No.
03-20 Series of 2020.

The procedure provided shall be as follows:

1. Within two (2) days from receipt of the complaint/amended complaint, the Labor Arbiter shall
issue Summons.
2. Within five (5) days from receipt of the return of summons, the Labor Arbiter shall issue an
Order directing both parties to file their respective Position Papers within fifteen (15) calendar
days from receipt of the Order. Filing shall be through registered mail or authorized private
courier.
3. Within five (5) days from receipt of Summons, respondent may file a motion to set the case for
mandatory conciliation and mediation conference for possible settlement.
4. Within five (5) days from receipt of the Order to file Position Paper, the complainant may file a
motion to set the case for mandatory conciliation and mediation conference for possible
settlement. The motion should indicate the terms and conditions of the settlement proposal
including the amount being offered.
5. Within three (3) days, the other party shall file a response and counter-proposal. Thereafter, the
Labor Arbiter shall issue a notice of conference if he/she deems it necessary. Otherwise, if parties
do not receive a notice of conference, they shall proceed to file Position Papers within the period
set in the Order.
6. If the parties agree to settle the case, they shall submit the notarized Compromise Agreement or a
Quitclaim/Waiver/Release through personal service, registered mail or private courier.

Limitations on Position Papers

Position papers shall cover only those claims and causes of action stated in the complaint or amended
complaint, accompanied by all supporting documents, including the affidavits of witnesses, which shall
take the place of their direct testimony, excluding those that may have been amicably settled (NLRC
RULES, Rule V, Sec. 12 (c)).

NOTE: Within ten (10) days from receipt of the position paper of the adverse party, a reply may be filed
on a date agreed upon and during a schedule set before the Labor Arbiter. The reply shall not allege
and/or prove facts and any cause or causes of action not referred to or included in the original or amended
complaint or petition or raised in the position paper. (NLRC RULES, Rule V, Sec. 12 (d))

Hearing or Clarificatory Conference

Immediately after the submission by the parties of their position paper or reply, as the case may be, the
Labor Arbiter shall, motu proprio, determine whether there is a need for a hearing or clarificatory
conference. At this stage, he/she may, at his/her discretion and for the purpose of making such
determination, ask clarificatory questions to further elicit facts or information, including but not limited to
the subpoena of relevant documentary evidence, if any, from any party or witness. (NLRC RULES, Rule
V, Sec. 13)

Submission of the Case for Decision

Upon the submission by the parties of their position papers or replies, or the lapse of the period to submit
the same, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision unless the Labor Arbiter calls for a hearing or
clarificatory conference in accordance with Section 12 and 14(a) of this Rule, in which case, notice of
hearing or clarificatory conference shall be immediately sent to the parties. Upon termination of the said
hearing or conference, the case is deemed submitted for decision. (NLRC RULES, Rule V, Sec. 16)

Effect of Lack of Verification

The requirement of a verified position paper is applicable only in proceedings before the Labor Arbiters.
Regardless, lack of verification of the position paper is a formal, rather than a substantial defect. It is not
fatal in any case. It could have been easily corrected by requiring an oath. The court referred to the case
of Del Rosario and Sons Logging Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC, Et Al., G.R. No. 64204, May 31, 1985, 136
SCRA 660. This doctrine was later reiterated in the cases of Murillo, Et. Al. v. Sun Valley Realty, Inc., Et
Al., G.R. No. 67272, June 30, 1988, 163 SCRA 271 and Precision Electronics Corporation v. NLRC, Et
Al., G.R. No. 86657, October 23, 1989, 178 SCRA 667.

WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM

Quitclaims, waivers, releases (collectively referred to as “quitclaims”) are legal documents signed by
employees who absolve employers from all liability including:

1) Monetary claims; and/or

 2) Illegal dismissal- only if signed in connection with a formal labor case before the DOLE officers
or mediators, Labor Arbiter/NLRC, Voluntary Arbitrators/NCMB

Quitclaims are contracts in the nature of a compromise where the parties make concessions, a lawful
device to avoid litigation. It is a valid and binding agreement between the parties, provided that it
constitutes a credible and reasonable settlement and the one accomplishing it has done so voluntarily and
with full understanding of its import (F.F. Cruz & Co. vs Galandez)

Requisites

To be valid, a deed of release, waiver or quitclaim must meet the following requirements:
(1) that there was no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties;
(2) that the consideration for the quitclaim is sufficient and reasonable; and
(3) that the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or
prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. (City Government of Makati v. Odeña) as
reiterated in (Arlo Aluminum vs Pinon, et. al)

Requisites as to Form:
Compromise agreements in the form of waiver or quitclaim are essentially contractual (Radio Mindanao
Network,Inc. v. Amurao III, G.R. No. 167225, October 22, 2014). As such, there is no prescribed form
for their valid execution. The document must simply be set forth in writing:

Requisites as to Substance:
Waivers and quitclaims are valid and binding if the following conditions are met:
1. The employee executes a deed of quitclaim voluntarily;
2. He has full understanding of what he was doing;
3. There is no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties;
4. The consideration of the quitclaim is credible and reasonable; and
5. The contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial
to a third person with a right recognized by law (Goodrich Manufacturing Corporation v. Ativo, GR.No
188002,February 1, 2010)

When considered invalid?

Courts have stepped in to invalidate questionable transactions, especially where there is clear proof that a
waiver, for instance, was obtained from an unsuspecting or a gullible person, or where the agreement or
settlement was unconscionable on its face. A quitclaim is ineffective in barring recovery of the full
measure of a worker's rights, and the acceptance of benefits therefrom does not amount to estoppel.
Moreover, a quitclaim in which the consideration is scandalously low and inequitable cannot be an
obstacle to the pursuit of a worker's legitimate claim. (City Government of Makati v. Odeña)

It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person,
or the terms of the settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul the
questionable transaction. But where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily, with
full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for the quitclaim is sufficient and
reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking. (Zuellig Pharma Corp.
v. Sibal)

According to jurisprudence, even if an employee has signed a satisfaction receipt for his claims, it does
not necessarily result in a valid quitclaim. A quitclaim may not be considered as a valid agreement where
a worker agrees to receive less compensation than what he is entitled to recover. It is well-settled that a
deed of release or quitclaim cannot prevent an employee from demanding benefits to which he is legally
entitled. The reason why quitclaims are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy, is that the
employer and the employee do not obviously stand on the same footing, the tendency for the employer to
drive the employee to the wall. (Lourdes Marcos et al. vs. NLRC et al.)

While rights may be waived under Article 6 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the waiver must not be
contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a
right recognized by law. A quitclaim agreement is considered void where it obligates the workers
concerned to forego their benefits while at the same time exempting the employer from any liability that it
may choose to reject. This also runs counter to Article 22 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which
provides that no one shall be unjustly enriched at the expense of another.

Examples of a valid waiver or quitclaim

In Goodrich Manufacturing Corp. v. Ativo, the Court held that the quitclaims were valid because the
contents thereof were simple, clear and unequivocal; that the business was closed due to legitimate
reasons; and that the consideration given under the quitclaims did not appear to be grossly inadequate vis-
a-vis what the employees should have received in full. It was underscored therein that the total monetary
awards computed by the LA were even lesser than the amounts already received by the employees in the
quitclaim. Thus, due to the sufficient consideration, the validity of the quitclaim was upheld.

Likewise, in Jiao v. National Labor Relations Commission, the quitclaim was declared valid because there
were no allegations of fraud or deceit employed; no force or duress was exerted against the employees to
sign the quitclaims; and the consideration was reasonable as it was based on the amount required by law.
The Court observed that the compensation of separation pay equivalent to one and a half month salary for
every year of service was a sufficient consideration under labor laws.

Return of Consideration already paid upon invalidation of Waiver

When a quitclaim is declared invalid for one reason or another, the recipient thereto must return or offset
the compensation received. The case of Emco Plywood Corporation v. Abelgas involve the validity of the
deed of release or quitclaim signed by the retrenched employees. In that case, it was ruled that the
employer failed to discharge its burden in proving that the quitclaims were valid. Nevertheless, the Court
ruled that the amounts already received by the employees pursuant to the quitclaim should be deducted
from their respective monetary awards.
Similarly, in Rondina v. Court of Appeals, the Court declared that the quitclaim signed by the employees
were invalid because there was a gross disparity between the consideration received therein and the
proper amount of award computed by the voluntary arbitrator. Nevertheless, it was adjudged that the
amounts already received by the employee under the invalid quitclaim must be subtracted from the
monetary award to be received by the employee.

NOTE: Read the case of Arlo Aluminum vs Pinon, G.R. 215874. July 05, 2017 for better understanding of
the concept
SAMPLE: POSITION PAPER FOR LABOR CASE

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Makati City

DORA REKLAMADORA,
Complainant,

- versus - NLRC CASE NO. RAB-III-01-23456-20

MANLOLO CO., INC.,

Respondent/s.

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

POSITION PAPER

Respondent/Complainant representing himself (or through counsel) and unto this Honorable
Office most respectfully submits this position paper, and states that: (Note: In cases before NLRC, non-
lawyer appearance is allowed provided that the non-lawyer represents himself as a party to the case)

PREPARATORY STATEMENT

The issue of whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and
respondents is essentially a question of fact. The factors that determine the issue include whho has the
power to select the employee, who pays the employee's wages, who has the power to dismiss the
employee, and who exercises control of the methods and results by which the work of the employee is
accomplished. "Reyes vs. Glaucoma Research Foundation Inc., Et Al., G.R. No. 189255, June 17,
2015. (Note: This is just an example-You may insert jurisprudence ruling or law provision that suits your
arguments or side of the case)

Before this Honorable Office is a case of the alleged ___________. (Note: This is where you will
state the alleged violations claimed by the complainant on his or her complaint)

As will be shown below, there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties and the
complainant’s claims are nothing but baseless and unsubstantiated. Thus, the dismissal of the complaint is
warranted.
 MATERIAL DATES

Pursuant to the Covid-19 Advisory No. 05 dated March 17, 2020, the mandatory conciliation
conferences for complaints filed with the Regional Arbitration Branch that is scheduled during the
quarantine period has been terminated and as a consequence, the Honorable Labor Arbiter directed the
parties to submit their respective position papers within (15) calendar days from receipt of the order.

THE PARTIES

Complainant DORA REKLAMADORA, (hereinafter referred to as “Complainant”) is, on

information, a Filipino, of legal age, with address at ________________________, where she may be
served with notices, orders, and processes of this Honorable Office.

Respondent MANLOLO CO., INC., (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent Corporation”) is a

corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines with business address at
_____________________. (Note: The respondent corporation is represented by its officer, whose name
is necessarily included in the complaint. Thus you may also include in this section the name of the
corporation’s representative and his address as well as his position to the company. You must include in
Annex the proof of him being the corporation’s representative. For example, you may state that: “The
Respondent Corporation is represented by its Corporate Secretary MARIA JOSE, Filipino, of legal age,
with address at ____________. The copy of her Certificate of Employment is hereto attached as Annex
“1”.”)

Respondent _____________ (name of Individual Respondent, if there is any) (hereinafter

referred to as “Respondent”) is, on information, a Filipino, of legal age, with address at -
______________________, where he may be served with notices, orders and processes of this Honorable
Office.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

This is a case of alleged (state the violations claimed by the complainant).

NOTE: In this section, you will state the factual antecedents leading to the filing of the case. You must
include those facts that are necessary and relevant to the issues to be resolved. Of course, you are stating
the facts that are according to what your client is saying. If you represent yourself as a party to the case,
you just state the facts according to the best of your knowledge. There are facts that need attachment of
the annexes or documents to prove that what you are stating is indeed the facts. Like in labor cases, for
example, the business registration document to prove the name and existence of a corporation. In short, if
you have anything there to prove the facts you are claiming, just attach the same and declare as annexes.

Do it in a paragraph form like this one. Make your statement of facts as clear and chronological as
possible according to the events that happened that lead to the filing of the case.
Hence, this Position Paper. (to end and concludes the statement of the facts)

THE ISSUE

Respondent/Complainant respectfully submits the following issue/s for the resolution of the Honorable
Commission:

WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

Note: You may add as many issues you may find necessary to be included and needs to be
resolved by the honorable office.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

In this section, you will delve into the issue/s of the case. Here, you will argue your side by citing
your logic, legal bases and explanations. You will answer the issues in favor of your client or if you are
representing yourself, you should argue in your favor by substantiating your claim with legal bases like
case rulings and jurisprudence or provisions of the law. You should also attach as annexes your evidence
or proofs to your arguments. Consider the following as an example of argument for the non-existence of
employer employee relationship:

Existence of Employer-Employee Relationship

As defined under Republic Act No. 8282, Sec. 8(d), An Employee is any person who performs
services for an employer in which either or both mental and physical efforts are used and who receives
compensation for such services, where there is an employer-employee relationship.

In the case of Atok Big Wedge Company Inc., vs. Gison, G.R. No. 169510, August 8, 2011, to be
considered employee, one must have employer-employee relationship. The existence of such relationship
is conditioned upon the following requirements:

1. Selection and engagement of the employee;

2. Payment of Wages;
3. Power of Dismissal;
4. Employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct with respect to the means and methods by which
the work is to be accomplished.

The requirements stated above must be present to consider the existence of employer-employee
relationship between the parties.
 Applying these requirements to the Complainant, assuming but without admitting that the
Respondent Corporation did select and seek the engagement of the Complainant to look over the Shop,
still, the other requirements are not present. There is no payment of wages or compensation to the
Complainant. The owner did not give the complainant a wage like what usual employees get. She is just
helping out her friend by looking over the Shop and initiates the collecting of the business’s earnings and
turn over the same to the owner. Her act is only gratuitous.

Article 97(f) of the Labor Code clearly states :

"xxx wage paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or earnings, however designated,
capabale of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or
commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an
employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done, or for
services rendered or to be rendered, and includes the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the
Secretary of Labor, of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the
employee."

This element is lacking in tis case because the employer did not give any amount that is meant to
be a payment for the complainant's help.

There is no power of dismissal to the Complainant because the Complainant’s act in going to the
Shop and doing tasks there is only voluntary as when she did the same to give favor to her friend owner.
There is also no power to control the Complainant’s conduct since the owner is just seeking help to her
friend and did not specify any guidelines or instructions to the Complainant on how to collect the Shop’s
earnings and to do any tasks. The owner is just interested in the outcome of the Complainant’s help and
that is the turnover of the earnings, to look over her business whenever she’s available and tell her if there
is any problem he may notice.

In the case of Lirio vs. Genovia, G.R. No. 169757, 2011, the power to control pertains not only to
results but also to the means and methods to attain those results. Furthermore, in the case of Insular Life
Assurance Co, LTD vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 84484, 1989, not every form of control will create an employer-
employee relationship. It did not exist when control is in the form of rules that merely serve as guidelines
towards the achievement of results without dictating the means or methods to attain them. It exists when
control is in the form of rules that fix the methodology to attain a specified result and bind the worker to
use such.

Thus, considering the foregoing, the Complainant cannot be classified as an employee of the
Shop because of lack of employer-employer relationship.

PRAYER
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Labor Arbiter that
an order be issued to dismiss all other claims made by the Complainant for lack of merit.

Respondent prays for such other just and equitable reliefs under the premises.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

October 19, 2020, Makati City.

___________________
Complainant/Respondent

Republic of the Philippines )

Makati City, Metro Manila ) S.S.

VERIFICATION

I, ________________, of legal age, Filipino Citizen, and with address at

_______________________________, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, deposes and
state:

1. That I am the complainant/respondent in this case;

2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Position Paper;

3. That I have read the allegations therein and the same are true and correct of my own personal
knowledge and/or based on authentic records of this case.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my signature this ___ day of
_____________________, 2020 at ___________________________.

____________________________
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this ____ day of __________, 2020, at
______________________, with affiant exhibiting to me her Competent Evidence of Identity by way of
her ________________________ issued on/to expire on _______________________ issued at
____________________.

Doc. No. _____ ;

Page No. _____ ; NOTARY PUBLIC
Book No. _____ ;
Series of 2020.

Copy furnished:

_____________________
Complainant/Respondent
(Address)
SAMPLE: FORM 151

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Regional
Quezon City

JUAN DEMANDA,
Complainant,

-versus-

ABC OPORTUNISTA CORPORATION

Respondent.

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

QUITCLAIM AND RELEASE

I, JUAN DEMANDA of legal age, with address at Blk 12 Lot 34, Malolos City, Bulacan,
after having been duly sworn to an oath in accordance with law, depose and say:

1. I was an employee of ABC OPORTUNISTA CORPORATION, with address at 456

Catriona Avenue, Malolos City, Bulacan.

2. On the 11th of April 2022, I filed the instant case for illegal dismissal as well as for the
payment of underpaid benefits;

3. That after much thought, I now realize my mistake in filing the instant case. I declare that
I resigned from my work voluntarily and of my own free will and design. Being so, I
have no cause of action against my said employer nor any of its officers, representative,
successors or assigns.

4. I likewise declare that I am not not entitled to any underpayment as I mentioned in this
complaint, and hereby free the respondents in this case from any liability whatsoever
from any issues arising from the
subject complaint, including that which pertains to the Social Security Service (SSS),
PAG-IBIG, and PHILHEALTH.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 8th day of August 2022 at
Malolos City, Bulacan.

JUAN DEMANDA
COMPLAINANT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 8th day of August at Malolos City,
Bulacan by the complainant JUAN DEMANDA. I hereby certify that I have personally
examined the complainant and I am satisfied that he voluntarily executed and understood the said
Quitclaim and Release.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this 8th day of August 2022 at Malolos City,
Bulacan.

ALEX B. CATACUTAN
LABOR ARBITER