REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

FERWIN S. ILAGAN,
Complainant,

-versus- NLRC-NCR CASE No. 06-06778-15

8BEES MOTION GRAPHICS

SERVICES, ET AL.,
Respondent/s.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

RESPONDENT’S REJOINDER

RESPONDENT, by counsel, to this Honorable Office, most

respectfully submits his following Rejoinder to Complainant’s
Reply, THUS:

1. In illegal dismissal case, the burden Summing up

complainant’s Position Paper, it would appear that he has the
impression that respondent no longer wants to have something to
do with him, thus, his allegation that the door lock in
respondent’s office had been changed. This prompted
complainant to file this complaint charging respondent of illegal
dismissal.

2. But other than his self-serving allegations,

complainant could not produce any evidence that his services as
respondent’s all around errand boy had been terminated. The
truth is: Complainant was the one who spread word in their
family circle that he could and would no longer work with
respondent.

3. The door lock in respondent’s office was changed only

after respondent had discovered that the complainant had stolen
the design and the concept prepared by the respondent for the
various projects and programs of Unilever Philippines and other
valued clients of the respondent.

4. Also, complainant had already engaged in destructive

Page1

acts all directed and intended to destroy the respondent and

respondent’s business. Complainant had filed complaints left and
right against the respondent before the Business Permit and
Licensing Office, the DTI, the BIR, etc. Otherwise put,
complainant had engaged in a “complaint spree” in his bid to
make good of his threat to destroy the respondent and in the
process satisfy his gloating and hatred towards the respondent.

5. There is no dispute that complainant is a person in the

personal service of another who is excluded from the coverage of
Bok III, Title 1 of the Labor Code of the Philippines. Persons in the
personal service of another are those who minister to the personal
comfort, convenience or safety of the employer as well as the
members of the employer’s household. (Sec. 2 (d), Rule I, Book III,
Rules Implementing the Labor Code.)

6. The reason for the exemption is because the nature of

their work and their peculiar relationship with their employer
necessitates that they be freed from certain legal restrictions
applicable to employers engaged in a business undertaking.

7. To repeat, although there is just and valid cause to

dismiss the complainant, respondent did not do so for family
relationship sake. Respondent had already learned to put up with
the impertinence of the complainant.

8. Respondent’s mother-in-law (Complainant’s mother)

had tried to mediate. It was she who suggested upon the
complainant to give respondent time to think things over or to let
the parties’ nerve to cool.

9. In a case it was enunciated by the High Court that

dishonesty involves a serious misconduct on the part of the
employee, a breach of the trust reposed by the employer upon
him. (Artemio Labor, et al. vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 183). The cause
of social justice is not served by upholding the interest of the
employee in disregard of the right of the employer. Where it is
used to shield a wrongdoing, social justice ceases to be an
effective instrument for the “equalization of the social and
economic forces” by the State.

10. Squarely, it was held by the High Court that “the

rendition of services to a business rival is not only an act of
disloyalty but also a serious misconduct and willful breach of
trust which are valid and just grounds for the termination of an
employment.” (ABS-CBN Employee’s Union v. NLRC, G.R. No.
111211, 24 July 1997).
Page2
 11. As regards complainant’s averment that respondent is
not remitting the required contribution to the SSS, Philhealth and
Pag-ibig, suffice it to say it is complainant himself who refused to
be declared as an employee for purposes of the said SSS, Pag-ibig
and Philhealth coverage.

12. Several times, complainant had been required by the

respondent to fill up and submit the necessary form, supporting
documents like certificate of Live Birth and Marriage Contract but
he refused to comply as according to him there is no need for him
to be covered as it will just be a burden on his part to make the
required employee’s contribution.

13. At any rate, as stated at the outset, complainant is a

person in the personal service of another who is working for
respondent based on loose and informal arrangement.

14. Also, this is not the proper forum for that matter or
complaint to be ventilated upon. If complainant believes that he
has a cause of action, the same should be brought before the SSS
and Pag-ibig.

15. Again, it bears stressing that complainant’s claim for

damages has no factual basis also. To warrant an award of moral
damages, it must be shown that dismissal of the employee was
attended to by bad faith, or constituted an act oppressive to
labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs
or public policy. (Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs.
NLRC, 323 SCRA 86).

16, Last, complainant had not been dismissed from his

work, thus, there is no basis to award damages and attorney’s
fees to any of the complainants.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of the Honorable Office that judgment be rendered
dismissing this case for utter lack of merit for absence of any
factual and legal bases.
Other reliefs, just and equitable are also prayed for.
13 August 2015, Quezon City.

BACLIG & VILLANUEVA

Page3

Counsel for the Respondent

 Unit 204, Eagle Court Condominium, 26 Matalino St., Diliman, Q.C.
Tel. Nos. 920-4710; 09276191033
By:

DANNY F. VILLANUEVA
PTR No. 9032732; 1/03/2014;QC
IBP No. 915281; 1/03/2014; QC
Roll No. 47292
MCLE No. IV-00002235; August 10, 2012

VERIFICATION
I, ROMEL BAUTISTA, of legal age, and a resident of
Caloocan City under oath most respectfully state, THAT: I am the
respondent in this case; I have caused the preparation of the
above Reply; I have read and understood all the allegations
therein; The allegations therein are all of my personal knowledge
as well as based on authentic documents and records in our
possession.
WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby affixed my signature this
13 day of August 2015 here in Quezon City Philippines.
th

ROMEL BAUTISTA
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 13th day of

August 2015 here in Quezon City by affiant who is a person
known to me and who exhibited competent evidence of his
identity consisting of ________________ID bearing
No.____________________ issued on ______________which is still
valid at the time of the execution hereof.

Doc. No.________;
Page No.________;
Book No. _______;
S. of 2015.

Copy furnished:

FERWIN ILAGAN Received:_____________

Page4

Blk. 32, Lot 2, Phase II

Dela Costa Homes II, Caloocan City

Page5