Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

ROSEMARY MAGYAYA PADAL, ET AL.,

Complainant,

-versus- NLRC-NCR CASE No. NCR-01-00616-24

GANDHIS GARMENT’S,
Respondents,
x--------------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO ADMIT REJOINDER

(FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

Respondents, by counsel before the Honorable Branch, most respectfully allege:

1. Respondents received a copy of complainants’ Reply wherein

complainants set forth false allegations that need to be addressed, otherwise, it may
unduly influence the outcome of the instant case.

2. Given the foregoing, respondents are moving for the admission of the
attached Rejoinder (For the Respondents) which contain their counter-arguments to
those provided in complainants’ Reply.

3. Respectfully submitted.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents respectfully pray that the

instant REJOINDER (FOR THE RESPONDENTS) be ADMITTED as part of the
records of the case and considered in deciding the instant case.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, 19 April 2024.

EVANGELINE B. DELOS SANTOS

GANDHI B. DELOS SANTOS

Respondents

Copy furnished:

PRECY CRUZ DE JESUS

Counsel for the Complainants

Republic of the Philippines

1
 Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

ROSEMARY MAGYAYA PADAL, ET AL.,

Complainant,

-versus- NLRC-NCR CASE No. NCR-01-00616-24

GANDHIS GARMENT’S,
Respondents,
x--------------------------------------------------x

REJOINDER
(FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

Respondents, by counsel before the Honorable Branch, most respectfully submits

their Rejoinder answering the false arguments contained in the Reply to Respondents’
Position Paper, and hereby allege:

1. Complainant Castillo was not hired in the year 2013. Rather, as shown by
the pieces of evidence presented by respondents in both their Position Paper and Reply,
both complainants Castillo and Padal were just re-hired by respondents starting on
December 2022;

2. In fact, the alleged error in complainants’ Position Paper wherein they

provided therein that the hiring date of complainant Castillo was 2023 as compared to
what they are providing now in the Reply which is 2013 is a manifestation that
complainants are lying about the starting date of their employment. The truth is that
complainants Castillo and Padal have initially relinquished their employment with
respondents. Then, both had a different employer (i.e., Danilo (“Don”) Abrenica). But
this employment with Danilo (“Don”) Abrenica was also cut short. Subsequently, and
due to their requests to respondents to accept them once more and because of
respondents’ genuine concern for them, they were allowed to go back to respondents.
Thus, it is untrue that both complainants Castillo and Padal had an uninterrupted
employment with respondents starting on 2013. This fact is supported by the various
pieces of evidence adduced by respondents. As compared to complainants’ mere
allegation and respondents’ statements of fact duly supported by the evidence on
record, the latter should be given credence.

3. Contrary to complainants’ insistence, all of respondents’ sewer-employees

including herein complainants Castillo and Padal are paid on a piece rate basis.
Respondents’ employees have duly testified on this fact. Moreover, payment on a piece
rate basis is the standard in the garments industry. Sewers will not work for a garment
shop if they are merely paid by the minimum wage per day. They earn more using the
piece rate basis of computing wages. Moreover, garments shop owners also favor piece
rate basis of payment since sewers are more inclined to produce more work since they
are paid by the results.

4. The fact that complainant Padal allegedly took a leave in 2019 and was
recalled back to work in 2020 wherein she was promoted to “line leader” is clearly
disputed by the messenger conversations she had with respondent Evangeline B.
Gandhi wherein it was shown there that she expressly relinquished her employment

2
with respondents and not merely took a leave, and by the the testimonies of Nerissa M.
Arellano and Rebecca Rafallo wherein it was shown that she worked for Danilo (“Don”)
Abrenica from March 2019 to July 2020. Thus, there was a break in her employment
with respondents. Her second employment with respondents only started on December
2022.

5. The fact that both complainants Padal and Castillo are employees of
respondents only from December 2022 are duly supported by the evidence submitted
by respondents. In fact, one of the persons identified by complainants in their Reply
(i.e., Ronel L. Gandalon) is the actual employer of complainant Castillo from January
2022 to April 2022.1 Thus, this lends credence to the allegations that complainants Padal
and Castillo are employees of respondents only from December 2022.

6. The allegations by Evangeline Delos Santos that she told her workers that
for December 2023 will be until 19 December 2023 or 20 December 2023 and resume on
2 January 2024 to give time for the Christmas holidays is duly corroborated by the
testimonies of respondents’ other employees.

7. Respondents never in one occasion had eighteen (18) employees. They

operate with less than ten (10) employees in any moment of time because their place of
operation (i.e., garment shop located in a garage) cannot accommodate more than ten
(10) employees. Moreover, the size of respondents’ operations is not so big and
profitable that it can hire more than ten (10) employees at any time.

8. Some of the names indicated in complainants’ Reply are unknown to

respondents while the others are not even employees of respondents with respect to
their garments shop. The person named “Jeany” is a personal kasambahay of
respondents Gandhi B. Delos Santos and Evangeline B. Delos Santos. She does not in
any way render service for the garments shop but only renders personal service to
respondents family. Ronel Gandalan which is incorrectly spelled (i.e., correct spelling is
Ronel Gandalon) is not even an employee but he is the same person who testified
against complainant Castillo (i.e., complainant Castillo worked for Mr. Ronel Gandalon
from January 2022 to April 2022).2

9. Jurisprudence dictates that the burden of proof in proving employer-

employee relationship lies with the employee. In the case at bar, complainants failed to
overcome this burden. For complainants Padal and Castillo, they failed to prove that
their employment relationship with respondents was continuous since 2013 considering
that rebuttal evidence was presented by respondents showing that such employment
relationship only re-started on December 2022 after the two initially relinquished their
first employment relationship with respondents. On the other hand, complainant Rafael
failed to show any evidence that she indeed became an employee of respondent. This is
because said person never became an employee of respondent. Her name “Julita Rafael”
is even unknown to respondents.

10. The allegation that complainants are entitled to rest day premium,
overtime pay and holiday pay premium was never proven by complainants since the
latter did not present competent evidence proving such allegation. The payment of 13 th
month pay was duly proven by respondents when it presented the signed payrolls
showing that complainants Padal and Castillo have received their 13 th month pay.
Complainants are not entitled to Service Incentive Leave and holiday pay since
respondents employ less than ten (10) employees at any given time as explained above.
1
Annex “5”, Position Paper (For the Respondents).
2
Ibid.

3
 11. There is no constructive dismissal that occurred in the case at bar. As duly
testified upon by respondents’ witnesses which are handwritten and corroborates each
other, respondents never uttered the words “TANGA!” and “BOBO!”, and threw
invectives at their employees. If ever respondents get angry at their employees, it was
simply because the employees failed to inform them of the due dates of each work or
that they failed to comply with the due dates set by the clients. However, whenever this
happens, respondents do not embarrass the erring employee in front of the other
employees. Respondent Gandhi B. Delos Santos would ask the erring employee to go to
his office, and it is inside that office where he discusses with the employee what went
wrong, how to solve the problem, and what improvements can be made. Respondent
Gandhi B. Delos Santos might get frustrated at the erring employee especially if the
erring employee already committed the same infraction more than two (2) times.
However, he will never degrade, verbally abuse or throw invectives at such erring
employee as it is contrary to his values.

12. Without such bad circumstance or unhealthy working environment which

complainants are alleging to have caused them to relinquish their employment, there
can be no constructive dismissal. In fact, what actually happened, and which was
admitted by complainants during one of the hearings with the Honorable Labor
Arbiter, complainants Padal and Castillo left their work with respondents at their own
accord without the latter forcing them to do so. Thus, there is no dismissal to speak of.
And without an actual dismissal, there can be no illegal/constructive dismissal.

13. The sole payroll presented by respondents proves the payment of the
proper salaries and 13th month pay to complainants. Respondents, who merely have a
measly garment shop, have never adopted a formal way of payroll system, wherein
employees are given payslips and asked to sign them for each pay-out of salaries. Thus,
the only instance that they were able to ask their employees to sign for a pay-out was
when the 13th month pay was given for 2023. Nonetheless, said single document also
contained all of the salaries received by the employees, including herein complainants
Padal and Castillo, for every month of 2023 (which was used as basis for the
computation of the 13th month pay). Accordingly, the employees, including herein
complainants Padal and Castillo, should not have signed the said document if they did
not receive such monthly salary/wage. Thus, said sole payroll for 2023 should be given
probative value to prove payment of proper salaries and 13 th month pay to
complainants.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents respectfully pray that the

instant Complaint be DISMISSED or DENIED for utter lack of merit.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, 19 April 2024.

EVANGELINE B. DELOS SANTOS

GANDHI B. DELOS SANTOS

Respondents

4
Copy furnished:

PRECY CRUZ DE JESUS

Counsel for the Complainants