Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City
----------o0o----------

ROSE V SULIETA
Complainant,

-versus- NLRC NCR CASE NO. (L)08-00603-19

JOB ASIA MANAGEMENT

SERVICES, ET AL,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER

COMES NOW, COMPLAINANT, by counsel and to this Honorable Office,

most respectfully avers, the following:

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

Complainant applied to the Respondent as a Domestic Helper assigned to

Amman, Jordan, and eventually signing a contract on January 29, 2019 Upon

reaching Amman, complainant was fetched in the airport by her employer, Arwa,

and was taken to the latter’s house. Immediately, complainant noticed that while

her contract states that she will only assist a married couple, there are several

children living in the house of her employer.

Complainant wakes up at 4:00 in the morning to prepare the food of her

employer’s children. Aside from this, complainant is in charge of preparing for

everything the children needs. Her everyday routine include taking care of the

1
youngest child of her employer (aged 3) cleaning the house, doing the laundry,

cooking food, ironing clothes, among others. This usually caused her to delay

eating her meals for lunch or dinner, or totally skip it.

Her typical day ends at 1:00 in the morning giving her barely enough time to

sleep after working for long hours during the day.

Complainant then became sometime on April, 2019. When complainant informed

her employer about this, she was simply ignored by her employer. Already

suffering, complainant then asked that she be brought back to her agency. Her

employer brought her back to Al Oula Recruiting. However, complainant was told

by her agency that she has no right to complainant, and was sent back to her

employer. Once again, complainant suffered the unbearable conditions she has

experienced, and stayed there for a about a month. On May 26, 2019,

Complainant was able to escape and went to the POLO in Amman. Complainant

stayed in Bahay Kalinga for several months until finally, her passport was given

to her as well as 2 weeks remaining salary. On July 2, 2019, complainant was

able to go back to the Philippines.

Feeling aggrieved, complainant filed this case for illegal dismissal.

STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION

OF ARBITRAL ISSUES

WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT WAS

ILLEGALLY DISMISSED:

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS ARE

GUILTY OF VIOLATING ARTICLE 277 (B)
OF THE LABOR CODE.

WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT IS

ENTITLED TO RECOVER SEPARATION
PAY.

2
1. DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINANT
is ILLEGAL.

1.1 It is respectfully submitted that the dismissal of complainant from his job is
illegal. Due to the inhumane conditions afforded to the complainant, he was
forced to severe his ties to his employer.

1.2 Complainant is an employee of respondent. Accordingly, he enjoyed security

of tenure in her job as provided under Article 279 of the Labor Code.

1.3 Security of tenure is a right guaranteed by the Constitution (please see

Tolentino vs. NLRC, 152 SCRA 717). Such constitutional right should not
thus be denied on mere speculation of any similar unclear or nebulous basis
(Hernandez vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 84302, August 10, 1989). This is because
the preservation of the lives of citizens is a basic duty of the State, more vital
than the preservation of corporate profits (Philippine Apparel Workers
Union vs. NLRC, 106 SCRA 444).

As held in Gonzales vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 125735, August 26, 1999:

"Employment is not merely a contractual;

relationship; it has assumed the nature of
property right. It may spell the difference
whether or not the family will have food on their
table, roof over their heads and education for
their children. It is for this reason that the State
has taken up measures to protect employees
from unjustified dismissals. It is also because of
this that the right to security of tenure is not only
a statutory right, but more so a constitutional
right."

1.4 Since complainant enjoyed security of tenure, she could only be discharged
from her employment pursuant to a just or authorized cause (please see Art. 279
, Labor Code).

1.5 The burden of proving the existence of just or authorized cause lies on the
employer. Be that as it may, a perusal of the circumstances of this case clearly

3
shows that there was no just or authorized cause for complainant’s termination
from her job.

1.6 The respondents are guilty of violating Article 277 (b) of the Labor Code
when it did not comply with the twin requirements of notice and hearing before
complainant’s termination was effected.

In the case of C & A Construction Co. Inc. vs. National Labor

Relations Commission, 318 SCRA 784, the Honorable Supreme Court
pointed out the basic requirements of the law before effecting dismissal of an
employee, to wit:

“Before an employee can be validly

dismissed, the employer must furnish the
employee with two (2) written notices: (1) a
written notice containing a statement of the
cause for termination to afford the employee
ample opportunity to be heard and defend
himself with the assistance of his
representative, if he so desires; and (2) if the
employer decides to terminate the services of
the employee, the employer must notify him in
writing of the decision to dismiss him, stating
clearly the reasons therefore.”

2.2 The above-stated jurisprudence can be further elucidated by the decision of

the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Vinta Maritime Co. Inc. et al.,
vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 113911, January 23,
1998, to wit:

“The twin requirements of notice and

hearing constitutes the essential elements of
due process, and neither of these elements can
be eliminated without running afoul of the
constitutional guaranty.
Partial compliance with the statutory
requirements respecting the procedure to be
observed in terminating employees will not
suffice. While this does not render the
dismissal illegal, it make the same defective for
which the employer must be sanctioned for

4
 non-compliance with the requirements of or
failure to observe due process.
These requisites cannot be replaced as
they are not mere technicalities but
requirements of due process to which every
employee is entitled to ensure that the
employer’s prerogative to dismiss is not
exercised arbitrarily.”

The respondents cannot “short-cut” the due process requirements laid

down by the law. Mere informing the complainant that she was already
dismissed is a clear defiance and without respect of the law.

3. COMPLAINANT is ENTITLED
TO SEPARATION PAY.

3.1 As complainant was illegally dismissed by respondents, she is thus entitled

to separation pay computed from the start of their employment up to the time
of termination.

In a case decided by the Honorable Supreme Court, it ruled, that:

“Separation pay is computed from the com-

mencement of employment up to the time of
termination, including the imputed service for
which the employee is entitled to backwages,
with the salary rate prevailing at the end of the
period of putative service being the basis for
computation. (Masagana Concrete Prod-
ucts, et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No.
106916, September 3, 1999)

3.2 Because of the arbitrary termination of his employment,

complainant is likewise entitled to the remaining portion of his
contract.

PRAYER

5
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that
after due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of the complainant,
and ordering the respondents, to:
1. Be declared guilty of illegal dismissal and thus;
2. Pay all the money claims of the complainant
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
Quezon City; October 16, 2019.

PRO-LABOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE CENTER

Counsel for the Complainant
No 33- B E. Rodriguez Avenue
Quezon City

By:

Vicente Jaime M. Topacio

IBP No.
PTR No.
Attorney's Roll No. 59418
MCLE Compliance No.
Tel. No. 413-4561

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

I, Rose V Sulieta and ___________________ of legal age,

married and with present postal address at (c/o complainant’s counsel) No. 33-B
E. Rodriguez Avenue, Quezon City, subscribing under oath depose and state:

1. That I am the complainant in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have read the foregoing contents of the Position Paper and
declare that the contents thereof are true and correct to my own
personal knowledge and information.

3. That I hereby certify that I have not filed and there is no other
pending action or proceeding involving the same issue before this
Honorable Commission, the Court of Appeals, Supreme Court or any
tribunal or agency, and in the event that we come to know of the
pendency of such case, we undertake to inform this Honorable
Commission of such fact within five days therefrom.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our signature this 1st

day of Ocotber2019 in Quezon City.

Rose Sulieta
Affiant

6
 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 16th day of October
2019, Quezon City, Philippines.

ADMINISTERING OFFICER

Copy furnished: