Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch III
City of San Fernando, Pampanga

UNITED WORKERS OF NORICHIN CO-

NFL REP BY JELLY CALMA PINEDA-
UNION PRESIDENT, ET. AL,
Complainants,

-versus- NLRC CASE NO. RAB III-09-00121-23

NORICHIN CO., RITA D. CRUZ-OWNER,

and MA. ROSARIO CADIENTE-
PRESIDENT,
Respondents,
x--------------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
(for the Complainants)

Complainants UNITED WORKERS OF NORICHIN CO – NATIONAL

FEDERATION OF LABOR (UWNC-NFL) Represented by JELLY CALMA PINEDA-
UNION PRESIDENT, with ROMEO ALVIZ ICARRO JR., JENNILYN BERNALTE
CALADIAO, BRENDICK MARTINEZ DE GUIA, DONNEL AQUINO SALVADOR,
FEDERICO GERALE DEQUITO JR., JOVET AQUINO SALVADOR, EDGAR
ACOHON ISANO, CHERRY TRAGURA LAPID, ROMNICK INFANTE TABERNA,
RICO SABILLA BAGAS, JUN-JUN RYAN GOLORAN CABUSAO, and ERICSON
CAMATCHO BOLILAN, unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully submits this
Position Paper, and in support thereof states:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

“The Supreme Court reaffirms its concern for the lowly worker who, often at
his employer’s mercy must look up to the law for his protection. The law regards him
with tenderness and even favor and always with faith and hope in his capacity to help
shaping the nation’s future. He must not be taken for granted. He deserves abiding
respect. How society treats him determines whether the knife in his hands shall be a
caring tool for beauty and progress or an angry weapon of defiance and revenge. If
we cherish him as we should, we must resolve to lighten “the weight of centuries” of
exploitation and disdain that bends his back but does not bow his head.”( Cebu Royal
Plant San Miguel Corp vs. Minister of Labor, )1

PARTIES
1
G.R. No. L-58639, 12 August 1987
1
 1. Complainants UNITED WORKERS OF NORICHIN CO. – NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF LABOR (“Complainants UWNC-NFL” for brevity) Represented by
JELLY CALMA PINEDA-UNION PRESIDENT, with ROMEO ALVIZ ICARRO JR.,
JENNILYN BERNALTE CALADIAO, BRENDICK MARTINEZ DE GUIA, DONNEL
AQUINO SALVADOR, FEDERICO GERALE DEQUITO JR., JOVET AQUINO
SALVADOR, EDGAR ACOHON ISANO, CHERRY TRAGURA LAPID, ROMNICK
INFANTE TABERNA, RICO SABILLA BAGAS, JUN-JUN RYAN GOLORAN
CABUSAO, and ERICSON CAMATCHO BOLILAN are Filipinos, of legal ages, and
for purposes of these proceedings, may be served with summons, orders,
resolutions, decisions and other legal processes of the Honorable Office at c/o Atty.
General D. Du in the address stated below.

2. Respondent NORICHIN CO. (“Respondent NORICHIN” for brevity) also

known as Ta Ritz Meat Products, is a corporation engaged in the Manufacturing, is
valid and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines and may be
served with summons, orders, resolutions, decisions and other legal processes of the
Honorable Office at its office address at Zone 5, San Matias, Santa Rita, Pampanga.

3. Individual Respondents RITA D. CRUZ-OWNER, and MA. ROSARIO

CADIENTE-PRESIDENT, are of legal ages, Filipinos, and may be served with
summons, orders, resolutions, decisions and other legal processes of the Honorable
Office at their office address at Zone 5, San Matias, Santa Rita, Pampanga.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

For Complainant Pineda:

4. Complainant Jelly C. Pineda was employed by respondent Norichin as a

production staff assigned in packaging on 12 February 2020 receiving a salary of
P400.00 per day for twelve (12) hours of work with work schedule from 6:00 pm to
6:00 am and 3 hours of overtime, even on holidays, with no rest day on Sunday.
Attached as ANNEX "A" is her copy of company ID.

5. On April 2020, complainant Pineda started to receive extra (incentives)

every Saturday worth P200.00 per week, as well as food allowance worth P100.00
per day.

6. On the year 2021, complainant Pineda received an increased in salary of

P420.00 per day, which was later increase to P500.00 per day on the year 2022.

7. Complainant Pineda does not receive any SIL, and 13th month pay since
she worked for respondent Norichin. There are also no benefits such as SSS, Pagibig
and Philhealth. Attached as ANNEX "B-series" is the copy of her payslips.

8. On 7 December 2022, complainant Pineda gave birth and was taken to the
hospital. She was not able to avail her maternity leave benefits in the SSS because of

2
non-contribution by Norichin. Attached as ANNEX "C" is the copy of patient discharge
plan.

For Complainant Icarro:

9. Complainant Romeo A. Icarro Jr. was employed by respondent Norichin as

a production staff assigned in mixing meat products on 01 August 2016. Before his
illegal dismissal, he was receiving a salary of P266.00 per day for twelve (12) hours
of work, with work schedule from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm, plus 3 hours regular overtime
daily, even on Holidays and no rest days on Sundays. Attached as ANNEX "D" is the
copy of his Company ID.

10. On the year 2017, complainant Icarro received an increased in salary of

P300.00 per day, P400.00 per day on 2018, P433.00 per day on 2020, and P500.00
per day on the year 2021.

11. On April 2020, complainant Icarro also started to receive extra (incentives)
every Saturday worth P200.00 per week, apart from his food allowance worth
P100.00 per day.

12. Complainant Icarro does not receive any SIL, and 13th month pay since he
worked for respondent Norichin, and no benefits such as SSS, Pagibig and
Philhealth. Attached as ANNEX "E-series" is the copy of his payslips.

For Complainant Caladiao:

13. Complainant Jennilyn B. Caladiao was employed by respondent Norichin

as a production staff on 23 January 2016 receiving a salary of P200.00 per day for
twelve (12) hours of work with work schedule from 6:00 pm to 6:00 am and 3 hours of
overtime, even on holidays, with no rest day even on Sundays. Attached as ANNEX
"F" is the copy of her company ID.

14. On year 2017, complainant Caladiao received an increased in salary of

P300.00 per day, P350.00 per day on 2018, P450.00 per day on 2019 and P500.00
per day on year 2020.

15. On year 2019, complainant Caladiao also started to receive extra

(incentives) every Saturday worth P500.00 per week, apart from food allowance
worth P100.00 per day.

16. Complainant Caladiao does not receive any SIL, and 13th month pay since
she worked for respondent Norichin, and no benefits such as SSS, Pagibig and
Philhealth. Attached as ANNEX "G-series" is the copy of her payslips.

For Complainant De Guia:

17. Complainant Brendick M. De Guia was employed by respondent Norichin

as a production staff on 06 September 2022 receiving a salary of P500.00 per day for
3
twelve (12) hours of work and 3 hours of overtime, even on holidays, with no rest day
even on Sundays.

18. On April 2020, complainant De Guia started to receive extra (incentives)

every Saturday worth P300.00 per week, and food allowance worth P100.00 per day.

19. Complainant De Guia does not receive any SIL, and 13th month pay since
he worked for respondent Norichin, and no benefits such as SSS, Pagibig and
Philhealth. Attached as ANNEX "H-series" is the copy of payslips.

For Complainant D. Salvador:

20. Complainant Donnel A. Salvador was employed by respondent Norichin as

a production staff on 02 July 2015 receiving a salary of P200.00 per day for twelve
(12) hours of work with work schedule from 6:00 pm to 6:00 am and 3 hours of
overtime, even on holidays, with no rest day even on Sundays. Attached as ANNEX
"I" is the copy of his company ID.

21. On year 2017, complainant D. Salvador received an increased in salary of

P300.00 per day, P350.00 per day on year 2018, P450.00 per day on year 2019, and
P500.00 per day on year 2020.

22. On year 2019, complainant D. Salvador started to receive extra

(incentives) every Saturday worth P500.00 per week, and food allowance worth
P100.00 per day.

23. Complainant D. Salvador does not receive any SIL, and 13th month pay
since he worked for respondent Norichin, and no benefits such as SSS, Pagibig and
Philhealth. Attached as ANNEX "J-series" is the copy of payslips.

For Complainant Dequito:

24. Complainant Federico G. Dequito Jr. was employed by respondent

Norichin as a production staff assigned in mixing meet product on 19 January 2013
receiving a salary of P200.00 per day for twelve (12) hours of work with work
schedule from 6:00 pm to 6:00 am and 3 hours of overtime, even on holidays, with no
rest day even on Sundays. Attached as ANNEX "K" is the copy of his company ID.

25. On year 2015, complainant Dequito received an increased in salary of

P400.00 per day, P500.00 per day on year 2017, and P600.00 per day in year 2018.

26. On April 2020, complainant Dequito started to receive extra (incentives)

every Saturday worth P400.00 per week, P600.00 per week on 2022, then on year
P800.00 per week on 2023. Aside from this, he also receives food allowance worth
P100.00 per day.

4
 27. Complainant Dequito does not receive any SIL, and 13th month pay since
he worked for respondent Norichin, and no benefits such as SSS, Pagibig and
Philhealth. Attached as ANNEX "L-series" is the copy of his payslips.

For Complainant J.Salvador:

28. Complainant Jovet A. Salvador was employed by respondent Norichin as a

production staff on 10 June 2020 receiving a salary of P450.00 per day for twelve
(12) hours of work and 3 hours of overtime, even on holidays, with no rest day on
Sunday. Attached as ANNEX "M" is the copy of his company ID.

29. Sometime on year 2020, complainant J. Salvador started to receive extra

(incentives) every Saturday worth P200.00 per week, P500.00 per week on 2021,
apart from food allowance worth P100.00 per day.

30. On year 2021, complainant J. Salvador received an increased salary of

P500.00 per day.

31. Complainant J. Salvador does not receive any SIL, and 13th month pay
since he worked for respondent Norichin, and no benefits such as SSS, Pagibig and
Philhealth. Attached as ANNEX "N-series" is the copy his of payslips.

For Complainant Isano:

32. Complainant Edgar A. Isano was employed by respondent Norichin as a

production staff assigned in mixing meat products on 24 March 2015 receiving a
salary of P200.00 per day for twelve (12) hours of work and 3 hours of overtime, even
on holidays, with no rest day even on Sundays. Attached as ANNEX "O" is the copy
of his company ID.

33. On year 2017, complainant Isano received an increased in salary of

P250.00 per day, P500.00 per day on year 2018, and P600.00 on year 2019.

34. On year 2019, complainant Isano started to receive extra (incentives)

every Saturday worth P500.00 per week, apart from food allowance worth P100.00
per day.

35. Complainant Isano does not receive any SIL, and 13th month pay since he
worked for respondent Norichin, and no benefits such as SSS, Pagibig and
Philhealth. Attached as ANNEX "P-series" is the copy of his payslips.

For Complainant Lapid:

36. Complainant Cherry T. Lapid was employed by respondent NORICHIN as

a production staff assigned in packaging on 21 January 2021 receiving a salary of
P400.00 per day for twelve (12) hours of work and 3 hours of overtime, even on
holidays, with no rest day even on Sundays.

5
 37. On April 2020, complainant Lapid started to receive extra (incentives)
every Saturday worth P200.00 a week, apart from food allowance worth P100 per
day.

38. On year 2022, complainant received an increased in salary of P450.00 per

day, and P500.00 per day on year 2023.

39. Complainant Lapid does not receive any SIL, and 13th month pay since
she worked for respondent Norichin, and no benefits such as SSS, Pagibig and
Philhealth.

For Complainant Taberna:

40. Complainant Romnick I. Taberna was employed by respondent NORICHIN

as a production worker on 20 July 2020 receiving a salary of P450.00 per day for
twelve (12) hours of work and 3 hours of overtime, even on holidays, with no rest day
even on Sundays. Attached as ANNEX "Q" is the copy of his company ID.

41. Also on 2020, complainant Taberna started to receive extra (incentives)

every Saturday worth P200.00 per week, P300.00 per week on year 2022, apart from
food allowance worth P100 per day.

42. On year 2021, complainant Taberna received an increased in salary of

P500.00 per day, and P600.00 per day on year 2023.

43. Complainant Taberna does not receive any SIL, and 13th month pay since
he worked for respondent Norichin, and no benefits such as SSS, Pagibig and
Philhealth. Attached as ANNEX "R-series" is the copy of payslips.

For Complainant Bagas:

44. Complainant Rico S. Bagas was employed by respondent NORICHIN as a

production staff assigned in mixing meat product on February 2018 receiving a salary
of P400.00 per day for twelve (12) hours of work and 3 hours of overtime, even on
holidays, with no rest day even on Sundays. Attached as ANNEX "S" is the copy of
his company ID.

45. On year 2019, complainant Bagas received an increased in salary of

P470.00 per day, and P500.00 per day on year 2020.

46. On 25 March 2022, complainant Bagas started to receive extra (incentives)

every Saturday worth P200 a week, apart from food allowance worth P100 per day.

47. Complainant Bagas does not receive any SIL, and 13th month pay since
he worked for respondent Norichin, and no benefits such as SSS, Pagibig and
Philhealth. Attached as ANNEX "T-series" is the copy of payslips.

For Complainant Cabusao:

6
 48. Complainant Jun-jun Ryan G. Cabusao was employed by respondent
NORICHIN as a production staff on 16 May 2022 receiving a salary of P400.00 per
day for twelve (12) hours of work with work schedule from 6:00 pm to 6:00 am and 3
hours of overtime, even on holidays, with no rest day even on Sundays.

49. On year 2023, complainant Cabusao started to receive extra (incentives)

every Saturday worth P300.00 per week, apart from food allowance worth P100.00
per day.

50. Also on the same year, complainant Cabusao received an increased in

salary of P500.00 per day.

51. Complainant Cabusao does not receive any SIL, and 13th month pay
since he worked for respondent Norichin, and no benefits such as SSS, Pagibig and
Philhealth. Attached as ANNEX "U-series" is the copy of payslips.

For Complainant Bolilan:

52. Complainant Ericson C. Bolilan was employed by respondent NORICHIN

as a production staff on 19 December 2019 receiving a salary of P420.00 per day for
twelve (12) hours of work and 3 hours of overtime, even on holidays, with no rest day
even on Sundays. Attached as ANNEX "V" is the copy of his company ID.

53. On year 2020, complainant Bolilan started to receive extra (incentives)

every Saturday worth P200.00 per week, P300.00 per week on 2021, P400.00 to
P600.00 per week on 2022, P800.00 per week on 2023, apart from food allowance
worth P100 per day.

54. On year 2021, complainant Bolilan received an increased in salary of

P450.00 per day, P500.00 per day on year 2022 and P600.00 per day on year 2023.

55. Complainant Bolilan does not receive any SIL, and 13th month pay since
he worked for respondent Norichin, and no benefits such as SSS, Pagibig and
Philhealth.. Attached as ANNEX "W-series" is the copy of payslips.

The establishment of the Labor Union

56. Things went sour on 27 June 2023, when a request for sole and exclusive
bargaining agent online validation conference was conducted by Department Of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) Mediator-Arbiter Attorney Remedios T. Vegim-Teves
which was participated both by the respondent Norichin and complainants UNWC-
NFL represented by union president complainant Pineda, Vice president complainant
Icarro and union auditor complainant Lapid. Attorney Teves validated and confirmed
that the request for SEBA certification met the requirements, and that she will issue a
SEBA certification to UWNC-NFL. Attached as ANNEX "X" is the copy of SEBA
certification.

7
 57. After the online conference, respondent Norichin called all the employees
and conducted an inquiry to find out who the members of the Union are. They forced
them to sign a “petition” addressed to the DOLE med-arbiter which states that they
were allegedly forced to join the union and that their signatures were only forged.
Attached as ANNEX "Y" is the copy of pictures of the said petition.

58. Among those who were forced to sign the petition because they were
intimidated by respondent Norichin were complainants Bagas, D. Salvador, J.
Salvador, and Bolilan, but later retracted to stand as union members.

59. On 30 June 2023, respondent Cadiente’s husband, Mr. Norberto Cruz,

physically assaulted complainant D. Salvador and yelled or cursed at complainant
Caladiao during their break time. Instead of applying first aid to Salvador, Cruz called
the barangay and had them blottered and arrested.

60. On 03 July 2023, complainant UWNC-NFL request for preventive

mediation to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) on the following
issues: 1] violation of Art. 248; 2] Art. 100; non-payment of: 3] rest day; 4] overtime; 5]
holidays; 6] SIL; 6] 13th month pay; and 7] benefits (e.g. SSS, Pag-ibig & Philhealth).
Attached as ANNEX “Z-series" is the copy of NCMB form.

61. Meanwhile, because of the assault upon him, Complainant D. Salvador

was unable to go to work due to his injury, so he went to the hospital for a check-up.
Attached as ANNEX "AA-series" is the copy of medico legal and pictures of the
injuries suffered by Salvador.

62. Complainants D. Salvador and Caladiao received a summons allegedly for

“dis-obedience” from Barangay Captain Jay R. Cruz (a relative of the respondents)
and mandated them to be appear on 04 July 2023 at 3:00 pm. Captain Cruz refused
to accept counter-complaint of Salvador and Caladiao. Attached as ANNEX "BB" is
the copy of “patawag” letter.

62. On 04 July 2023, complainants D. Salvador at Caladiao went to the

barangay to submit a motion to dismiss for the complaint filed against them. Attached
as ANNEX "CC-series" is the copy of motion to dismiss.

64. Respondent Norichin called all their employees for a meeting after work
(especially all union members) to compel them to sign a purported employment
contract and waiver, and also a company code of conduct whose contents were not
even explained to them and were not allowed to have a copy. Complainants were not
allowed to go home without signing the said documents first. Due to exhaustion and
hunger from working all day, complainants UWNC-NFL were forced to sign the said
documents.

65. On 05 August 2023, complainant Icarro received a letter of notice to

explain from respondent Norichin due to alleged violation of the anti-wiretapping law
or R.A 4200.

8
 66. On 10 August 2023, complainant Icarro submitted an explanation letter but
it was not accepted by Norichin and requested that it be translated to Tagalog.
Attached as ANNEX "DD-series" is the copy of explanation letter.

67. On 14 August 2023, complainant Icarro resubmitted the Tagalog

explanation letter around 4:00 pm but was instructed by their assistant to just leave it
in their office.

68. On 15 August 2023, Icarro was given the receiving copy of the explanation
letter. Attached as ANNEX "EE" is the copy of Tagalog explanation letter.

69. On 23 August 2023, complainant Icarro received a letter of invitation for

hearing/conference on September 1, 2023 at 4:00pm from respondent Norichin.

70. On 01 September 2023, complainant Icarro attended the

hearing/conference called by respondent Norichin.

71. On 13 September 2023, complainant Icarro received a subpoena letter

from the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor that directed him to submit a counter-
affidavit/s and other supporting documents or witnesses affidavit/s on September 12,
2023 at 10:00 am in the morning. Attached as ANNEX "FF" is the copy of the said
subpoena.

72. On 14 September 2023, Complainant Icarro with the help of Public

Attorney’s Office (PAO) submitted a motion for extension to the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor.

73. On 26 September 2023, complainant Icarro submitted his counter-affidavit

to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor.

74. On 27 September 2023, complainant Icarro received a “notice of dismissal

letter with employee departure clearance form” from respondent Norichin which was
also made effective on the same day. Attached as ANNEX "GG-series" is the copy of
notice of dismissal and ANNEX "HH" is the copy of the employee departure clearance
form.

75. When complainant Icarro asked about his salary, respondent Norichin
answered: "ma release lang ang kanyang back pay at kahit iyong iba pa kung siya ay
mag clearance muna.” Attached as ANNEX "II" is the copy of messenger
conversation.

76. On 07 October 2023, respondent Norichin made complainant Pineda

receive the employee’s departure clearance letter and clearance form for complainant
Icarro. Attached as ANNEX "JJ" is the copy of the employee’s departure clearance
letter.

77. On 06 November 2023, complainant Icarro received a RESOLUTION for

NPS NO. III-12-INV-23H-01305 for violation of R.A. No. 4200 “An act to prohibit and
9
penalize wiretapping and other related violation of communication, and for other
purposes” from the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. Attached as ANNEX "KK-
series" is the copy of the resolution. The case was dismissed.

78. Aggrieved, the complainants UWNC-NFL filed this instant case.

Conciliatory hearings proved to be futile, hence, this position paper.

ISSUES

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF UNFAIR

LABOR PRACTICES;
II. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT ICARRO WAS ILLEGALLY
DISMISSED;
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANTS ARE ENTITLED TO
THEIR MONETARY CLAIMS.

ARGUMENTS / DISCUSSION

Respondent Norichin is guilty of unfair

labor practice.

79. Articles 258 and 259 of the Labor Code states the concept of and
enumerates the unfair labor practices committed by employers.

ART. 258. 247 Concept of Unfair Labor Practice and Procedure for
Prosecution Thereof. — Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional right of
workers and employees to self-organization, are inimical to the legitimate
interests of both labor and management, including their right to bargain
collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom
and mutual respect, disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of
healthy and stable labor-management relations. (Labor Code of the
Philippines, Presidential Decree No. 442 (Amended & Renumbered), [July 21,
2015)
xxxx
ART. 259. 248 Unfair Labor Practices of Employers. — It shall be
unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practices:
(a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization;
xxxx
(e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and other terms
and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization, x x x (Labor Code of the Philippines,
Presidential Decree No. 442 (Amended & Renumbered), [July 21, 2015)

80. The records reveal several instances to support the charge of unfair labor
practice, specifically union busting, such as:

10
 A. After the online conference on 27 June 2023, respondent Cadiente
called her employees and conducted an inquiry to find out who the members
of the Union are. They forced them to sign a “petition” addressed to the DOLE
med-arbiter which states that they were allegedly forced to join the union and
that their signatures were only forged. The said petition states: “we want to
verify the names and signature of the employees submitted by Jelly Pineda for
the certification of the United Workers of Norichin Co. - NFL as some of our
employees testify that they were neither informed nor aware and didn’t sign for
the application of the union.”2 Respondent Cadiente pointing her finger can be
seen in the photo ordering the workers to sign the said document.

B. Inflicting harm to union officers, specifically complainant D.

Salvador3 and union secretary complainant Caladiao.

C. Using the influence of their relative barangay captain 4 to intimidate

the union and show that they are powerful and the law is on their side.

D. Not allowing the workers on 04 July 2023 to go home until they sign
the waiver and code of conduct, and not giving them ample amount of time to
carefully study the said documents.

E. Respondent Cadiente not accepting the original explanation of

complainant Icarro unless it has been translated into Tagalog on 23 August
2023.

F. Illegally terminating vice president complainant Icarro5. Icarro played

a vital role in organizing UWNC-NFL.

81. One by one, the union officers and organizers have been surgically
targeted by the respondents and imposing absurd charged against them. Production
staff like complainants Pineda, Icarro, Caladiao, Lapid and the Salvador Brothers
would be closely monitored by a newly-installed CCTV by respondent Norichin during
their work. Respondent Cadiente would deliberately instigate confrontations with them
and then charge them with insubordination and disrespect. If they cannot make
trumped up charges against union officers, the respondents would resurface old
violations. In short, respondent Norichin went on a fishing expedition in order to
terminate the then union organizers and prevent them from organizing a union.

82. Repondent Norichin clearly showed an intention to meddle with the

complainants UWNC-NFL right to organize. Therefore, it is clear that respondents
Norichin and Cadiente is guilty of unfair labor practice under the law.

Complainant Icarro was illegaly

dismissed.
2
ANNEX "Y"
3
ANNEX "AA-series
4
ANNEX "BB"
5
ANNEX "GG-series"
11
 83. Complainant Icarro is the Vice President of the Union and held a vital role
in organizing the union. He was the most active in union activities which was noticed
by the respondent Norichin. For this reason, he was specifically targetted and illegally
dismissed from his job.

84. The fundamental question that needs to be resolved in this case is

whether or not there exists just and valid cause for the termination of complainant
Icarro.

85. The applicable provision of law to this case is Article 297 of the Labor
Code, as amended, which states:

ARTICLE 297. Termination by Employer. - An employer may terminate

an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the
lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him
by his employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the
person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly
authorized representative; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing. (Emphases supplied.)

86. In Maula v. Ximex Delivery Express, Inc, 6 this Court reiterated previous
pronouncements on the nature of serious misconduct as a just cause to terminate an
employee according to the Labor Code. To quote:

Misconduct is improper or wrong conduct; it is the transgression of

some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of
duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in
judgment. The misconduct, to be serious within the meaning of the Labor
Code, must be of such a grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial
or unimportant. Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause
for dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the
employee's duties; and (c) it must show that the employee has become unfit to
continue working for the employer.

87. On the other hand, loss of trust and confidence, as a just cause for
termination of employment, is premised on the fact that an employee concerned
holds a position where greater trust is placed by management and from whom greater
fidelity to duty is correspondingly expected. The betrayal of this trust is the essence of
the offense for which an employee is penalized.7 Loss of trust and confidence to be a
valid cause for dismissal must be work related such as would show the employee
concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer and it must be based on a
6
G.R. No. 207838, January 25, 2017.
7
Cocoplans, Inc. v. Villapando, G.R. No. 183129, May 30, 2016.
12
willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. Such breach is willful if
it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse as
distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.
The loss of trust and confidence must spring from the voluntary or willful act of the
employee, or by reason of some blameworthy act or omission on the part of the
employee.8

88. Willful breach of trust, as just cause for the termination of employment, is
founded on the fact that the employee concerned: (1) holds a position of trust and
confidence, i.e., managerial personnel or those vested with powers and prerogatives
to lay down management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall,
discharge, assign or discipline employees; or (2) is routinely charged with the care
and custody of the employer's money or property, i.e., cashiers, auditors, property
custodians, or those who, in normal and routine exercise of their functions, regularly
handle significant amounts of money or property. In any of these situations, it is the
employee's breach of the trust that his or her position holds which results in the
employer's loss of confidence.9

89. For an employer to validly dismiss an employee on the ground of loss of

trust and confidence under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code, the employer must
observe the following guidelines: 1) loss of confidence should not be simulated; 2) it
should not be used as subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified;
3) it may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary; and 4) it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify earlier action
taken in bad faith. More importantly, it must be based on a willful breach of trust and
founded on clearly established facts.10

90. Thus, in order to dismiss an employee on the ground of loss of trust and
confidence, the employee must be guilty of an actual and willful breach of duty duly
supported by substantial evidence.11 Substantial evidence is that amount of evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.12

91. In termination cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer to show
that the dismissal is for a just cause.13 In the case at bar, respondent Norichin failed
to adduce substantial evidence that would clearly demonstrate that complainant
Icarro has committed serious misconduct or has performed actions that would
warrant the loss of trust and confidence reposed upon them by their employer.
Contrary to the findings to the investigation conducted by respondent Norichin, there
is no concrete and credible proof to support the allegation of wiretapping leveled by
respondent Norichin against complainant Icarro. - the said criminal act being the
underlying reason for the dismissal of the latter.

8
Venzon v. ZAMECO II Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 213934, November 9, 2016.
9
Inocente v. St. Vincent Foundation for Children and Aging, Inc., G.R. No. 202621, June 22, 2016.
10
Continental Micronesia, Inc. v. Basso, G.R. Nos. 178382-83, September 23, 2015, 771 SCRA 329, 351,
citing Apo Cement Corporation v. Baptisma, 688 Phil. 468, 480-481 (2012).
11
Leo's Restaurant and Bar Cafe v. Densing, G.R. No. 208535, October 19, 2016.
12
Mamba v. Bueno, G.R. No. 191416, February 7, 2017.
13
Turks Shawarma Co. v. Pajaron, G.R. No. 207156, January 16, 2017.
13
 92. The records of this case clearly indicate that no concrete and credible
proof was presented to link complainant Icarro to the wiretapping allegedly
committed. In fact, the ruling of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor14 stated that:

“We have gone over the records and evidence adduced during the
preliminary investigation and we are not convinced that the respondent herein
should be prosecuted for Violation of RA 4200. While the complainants were
able to secure the actual recording of the alleged conversation, there is no
concrete and credible proof that it was obtained properly and legally by the
said complainants. In other words, how they were able to discover about the
existence of the alleged recorded conversation through the video recording
device of the cellphone belonging to the respondent has not been sufficiently
explained and alleged in the filed complaint and we have entertained a
reasonable doubt as to how they were able to open the cellphone of herein
respondent. Under the given circumstances, it is the impression of the
undersigned that the complainants had illegally accessed and illegally opened
respondent’s cellphone without the express knowledge and consent of the
latter. If there is someone who should be criminally charged here, it should be
the complainants and not the respondent since the discovery as to the
contents of the video recording device of the cellphone was done not in the
manner and ways allowed or authorized by existing laws.”
xxxxx
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint for violation of RA
4200 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and for insufficiency of
evidence.”(emphasis supplied)

93. Based on the above, the wire taping case filed by the respondent Norichin
in the Prosecutor’s office has no basis and it is not true that the complainant violated
RA 4200. Hence, there is no legal basis for his dismissal.

94. It should be stressed that the reason why Icarro was targeted is because
of the preventive mediation that UWNC-NFL requested with the NCMB on July 03,
2023. Norichin used the said case as a retaliatory measure designed to coerce
UWNC-NFL into withdrawing their complaint for nonpayment of labor standards and
benefits. Such an act is proscribed by Article 118 of the Labor Code which states:

Art. 118. Retaliatory Measures - It shall be unlawful for an employer to

refuse to pay or reduce the wages and benefits, discharge or in any manner
discriminate against any employee who has filed any complaint or instituted
any proceeding under this title or has testified or is about to testify in such
proceedings.

95. There is also no question that complainant Icarro, as a production staff,

did not occupy a position reposed with trust and confidence. It is therefore clear that
there is no just and valid cause to terminate the employment of complainant Icarro for
loss of trust and confidence or even for serious misconduct.

14
ANNEX "KK-series"
14
 96. From the above discussion, it is crystal clear that the complainant was
illegally dismissed from employment. And as the Union Vice President, he possessed
a vital position to the union organizing. Hence, respondent Norichin is guilty of Union
Busting.

The complainants are entitled to their

monetary claims.

On the issue of reinstatement and

backwages:

97. It has been established from the discussion above that complainant Icarro
was illegally dismissed. Hence, he is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority
rights and salaries.

98. Moreover, due to the aforementioned illegal dismissal, an award of

backwages is also proper in the case at bar from the time of the complainant Icarro’s
termination up to the finality of this case.

Non-payment of overtime pay and

overtime premium, non-payment of rest
day pay and rest day premium, non-
payment of holiday pay and holiday
premium, non-payment of night shift
differential pay:

99. Well-settled is the rule that in cases of non-payment and underpayment of

overtime pay and overtime premium, non-payment of rest day pay and rest day
premium, non-payment of holiday pay and holiday premium, non-payment of night
shift differential pay, the employer has the burden of proof to show that the
worker/employee has been paid all his salaries and wages since it has in its
possession the proof of payment such as payrolls and/or vouchers (Sambalonay vs.
Jose Cuevas, NLRC No. RB IV – 186447, February 13, 1980), and in the absence of
proof to the contrary, it is deemed that no payment has been made.

100. The working conditions in Norichin Co is nothing short of inhumane - this

is why the employees pushed for the formation of a union. The usual working hours of
all employees of Norichin Co. exceeds twelve (12) hours a day as regular hours
implemented by the company, with an average of 16-hour work days for seven (7)
days a week, without rest days, and holidays. Attached as ANNEX "LL-series" is the
copy of the groupchat conversation evidencing the sordid working schedules of the
complainants.

101. Moreover, and more importantly, respondent Norichin submitted during

the hearings in the NCMB signed and authenticated records of payroll records of the
complainants and purportedly computed the “inadequacies” in their salaries and
benefits. These records were signed and authenticated by Ma. Fatima C. De Leon
(HR Manager) and respondent Ma. Rosario Cadiente (President). This is concrete
15
proof that Norichin indeed underpaid the complainants with their statutory benefits.
Therefore, it is clear that the respondents should be made liable to pay overtime,
overtime premium, rest day, rest day premium, holiday, holiday premium, and night
shift differential pay for the complainants.

Service incentive leave pay and 13th

month pay benefits:

102. Respondents Norichin employed complainants Dequito for 10 years,

Isano and D. Salvador for 8 years, Icarro and Caladiao for 7 years, Bagas for 5 years,
Bolilan for 4 years, Pineda, J. Salvador and Taberna for 3 years, Lapid for 2 years,
and De Guia and Cabusao for a year now. Applying the prescriptive period for money
claims under Article 291 of the Labor Code however, complainants should only be
entitled to the three years' worth of service incentive pay for the years 2019 to 2022.

103. However, Auto Bus Transport System, Inc. v. Bautista 15 clarified the
correct reckoning of the prescriptive period for service incentive leave pay:

104. It is essential at this point, however, to recognize that the service

incentive leave is a curious animal in relation to other benefits granted by the law to
every employee. In the case of service incentive leave, the employee may choose to
either use his leave credits or commute it to its monetary equivalent if not exhausted
at the end of the year. Furthermore, if the employee entitled to service incentive leave
does not use or commute the same, he is entitled upon his resignation or separation
from work to the commutation of his accrued service incentive leave. As enunciated
by the Court in Fernandez v. NLRC:

105. The clear policy of the Labor Code is to grant service incentive leave pay
to workers in all establishments, subject to a few exceptions. Section 2, Rule V, Book
III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations provides that "[e]very employee who
has rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive
leave of five days with pay." Service incentive leave is a right which accrues to every
employee who has served "within 12 months, whether continuous or broken reckoned
from the date the employee started working, including authorized absences and paid
regular holidays unless the working days in the establishment as a matter of practice
or policy, or that provided in the employment contracts, is less than 12 months, in
which case said period shall be considered as one year." It is also "commutable to its
money equivalent if not used or exhausted at the end of the year." In other words, an
employee who has served for one year is entitled to it. He may use it as leave days or
he may collect its monetary value. To limit the award to three years, as the solicitor
general recommends, is to unduly restrict such right.

106. Correspondingly, it can be conscientiously deduced that the cause of

action of an entitled employee to claim his service incentive leave pay accrues from
the moment the employer refuses to remunerate its monetary equivalent if the
employee did not make use of said leave credits but instead chose to avail of its
commutation. Accordingly, if the employee wishes to accumulate his leave credits
15
497 Phil. 863 (2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Second Division].
16
and opts for its commutation upon his resignation or separation from employment, his
cause of action to claim the whole amount of his accumulated service incentive leave
shall arise when the employer fails to pay such amount at the time of his resignation
or separation from employment.

107. Applying Article 291 of the Labor Code in light of this peculiarity of the
service incentive leave, we can conclude that the three (3)-year prescriptive period
commences, not at the end of the year when the employee becomes entitled to the
commutation of his service incentive leave, but from the time when the employer
refuses to pay its monetary equivalent after demand of commutation or upon
termination of the employee's services, as the case may be.

108. The above construal of Art. 291, vis-a-vis the rules on service incentive
leave, is in keeping with the rudimentary principle that in the implementation and
interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing regulations,
the workingman's welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration. The
policy is to extend the applicability of the decree to a greater number of employees
who can avail of the benefits under the law, which is in consonance with the avowed
policy of the State to give maximum aid and protection to labor. 16 (Emphasis
supplied).

109. Hence, the complainants are also entitled to the amount of proportionate
13th month pay and service incentive leave pay as mandated by law.

On the issue of damages:

110. It is evident that the illegal dismissal of the complainant Icarro was
attended by bad faith on the part of the respondents. He was unceremoniously
dismissed because of his union activities, and without any just or valid causes.

111. The complainant suffered sleepless nights and anxiety, having lost his job
which is his ONLY source of livelihood. As such, this humble counsel prays that the
Honorable Labor Arbiter penalize the respondents with Moral Damages as he may
deem fit.

112. Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the
public good. The law allows the grant of exemplary damages in cases such as this to
serve as a warning to the public and as a deterrent against the repetition of this kind
of deleterious actions. Hence, it is most respectfully prayed that the Honorable Labor
Arbiter award Exemplary Damages as he may deem fit, to prevent this kind of
treatment be repeated to other employees.

On the issue of attorney’s fees:

16
Id. at 876-878, citing Fernandez v. NLRC, 349 Phil. 65, 94-95 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
17
 113. Because of the injustices that the respondents committed against the
complainants, which resulted in the loss of employment of Icarro, the complainants
were constrained to retain the services of a legal counsel to protect their rights and
seek relief. Hence, an award of attorney’s fees is also proper in the case at bar.

114. Article 111 of the Labor Code, as amended, governs the grant of
attorney's fees in labor cases:

Art. 111. Attorney's fees. (a) In cases of unlawful withholding of wages, the
culpable party may be assessed attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent of
the amount of wages recovered.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to demand or accept, in any judicial or
administrative proceedings for the recovery of wages, attorney's fees which
exceed ten percent of the amount of wages recovered.

115. Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules also provides,
viz.:

Section 8. Attorney's fees. Attorney's fees in any judicial or administrative

proceedings for the recovery of wages shall not exceed 10% of the amount
awarded. The fees may be deducted from the total amount due the winning
party.

116. The Supreme Court has already explained in PCL Shipping Philippines,
Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission17 that there are two commonly accepted
concepts of attorney's fees the ordinary and extraordinary. In its ordinary concept, an
attorney's fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the
legal services the former renders; compensation is paid for the cost and/or results of
legal services per agreement or as may be assessed. In its extraordinary concept,
attorney's fees are deemed indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be paid by
the losing party to the winning party. The instances when these may be awarded are
enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, specifically in its paragraph 7 on actions
for recovery of wages, and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless the
client and his lawyer have agreed that the award shall accrue to the lawyer as
additional or part of compensation.

117. The Supreme Court also held in PCL Shipping that Article 111 of the
Labor Code, as amended, contemplates the extraordinary concept of attorney's fees
and that Article 111 is an exception to the declared policy of strict construction in the
award of attorney's fees. Although an express finding of facts and law is still
necessary to prove the merit of the award, there need not be any showing that the
employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages.

118. This was in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court in RTG
Construction, Inc. v. Facto and in Ortiz v. San Miguel Corporation18, where it stated:

17
G.R. No. 153031, December 14, 2006
18
 “Settled is the rule that in actions for recovery of wages, or where an employee
was forced to litigate and, thus, incur expenses to protect his rights and
interests, a monetary award by way of attorney's fees is justifiable under
Article Ill of the Labor Code; Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing
Rules; and paragraph 7, Article 208 of the Civil Code. The award of attorney's
fees is proper, and there need not be any showing that the employer acted
maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages. There need only be a
showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly.”

119. Because of the illegal termination committed by the Respondents, the

Complainant’ wages were withheld and was constrained to hire the services of a
lawyer to protect their rights and seek relief from the injustices they suffered in the
hands of their employer. Hence, an award of attorney’s fees is also proper in the case
at bar.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises duly considered, it is most respectfully prayed that

the Honorable Labor Arbiter:

(1) RULE that the complainants have been illegally dismissed;

(2) ORDER the Respondents to SOLIDARILY pay the complainants their
backwages, overtime pay, overtime premium pay, night deferential pay, rest
day pay, rest day premium pay, holidays pay, holidays premium pay, SILP,
13th month pay, benefits, other monetary awards, moral and exemplary
damages, attorney’s fees. and REINSTATE complainant Icarro to his former
position; and
(3) DECLARE the respondents guilty of Unfair Labor Practices and Union
Busting;

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

Quezon City for San Fernando City, 23 November 2023.

18
G.R. No. 85278 August 29, 1989
19
 GENERAL D. DU
atty_general@rocketmail.com
batasmanggagawa@gmail.com
34 Matiyaga Street, Brgy. Pinyahan, Diliman, Quezon City
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0028036
PTR No. 4056185/ 01-11-2023/ Quezon City
IBP No. 279263/ 01-09-2023/ Quezon City
Roll No. 61181

COPY FURNISHED

NORICHIN CO., RITA D. CRUZ-OWNER,

MA. ROSARIO and CADIENTE-
PRESIDENT,
ZONE 5, SAN MATIAS, SANTA RITA,
PAMPANGA

20
Republic of the Philippines )
Pampanga ) S.S.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

We, JELLY CALMA PINEDA of legal age, Filipino and resides at Porac,
Pampanga, ROMEO ALVIZ ICARRO JR. of legal age, Filipino and resides at Santa
Rita, Pampanga, JENNILYN BERNALTE CALADIAO of legal age, Filipino and
resides at Guagua, Pampanga, BRENDICK MARTINEZ DE GUIA of legal age,
Filipino and resides at Santa Rita, Pampanga, DONNEL AQUINO SALVADOR of
legal age, Filipino and resides at Santa Rita, Pampanga, FEDERICO GERALE
DEQUITO JR. of legal age, Filipino and resides at Santa Rita, Pampanga, JOVET
AQUINO SALVADOR of legal age, Filipino and resides at Santa Rita, Pampanga,
EDGAR ACOHON ISANO of legal age, Filipino and resides at Santa Rita,
Pampanga, CHERRY TRAGURA LAPID of legal age, Filipino and resides at Santa
Rita, Pampanga, ROMNICK INFANTE TABERNA of legal age, Filipino and resides at
Porac, Pampanga, RICO SABILLA BAGAS of legal age, Filipino and resides at Santa
Rita, Pampanga, JUN-JUN RYAN GOLORAN CABUSAO of legal age, Filipino and
resides at Santa Rita, Pampanga, and ERICSON CAMATCHO BOLILAN of legal
age, Filipino and resides at Santa Rita, Pampanga, after being sworn in accordance
with law, hereby depose and say:

We the Complainants in the foregoing case.

We have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing case and we have
read and understood the contents thereof and the allegations therein are true and
correct based on available records and of our own personal knowledge.

That this is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly

increase the cost of litigation. The factual allegations in the position paper have
evidentiary support and we have signed this Verification to certify the truthfulness of
the allegations in the position paper.

We have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same
issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency,
and to the best of our knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency.

If we should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed
or is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or
agency, we undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the
Honorable Office

21
 JELLY C. PINEDA ROMEO A. ICARRO JR.
Valid ID _______ Valid ID _______
Affiant Affiant

JENNILYN B. CALADIAO BRENDICK M. DE GUIA

Valid ID _______ Valid ID _______
Affiant Affiant

DONNEL A. SALVADOR FEDERICO G. DEQUITO JR.

Valid ID _______ Valid ID _______
Affiant Affiant

JOVET A. SALVADOR EDGAR A. ISANO

Valid ID _______ Valid ID _______
Affiant Affiant

CHERRY T. LAPID ROMNICK I. TABERNA

Valid ID _______ Valid ID _______
Affiant Affiant

RICO S. BAGAS JUN-JUN RYAN G. CABUSAO

Valid ID _______ Valid ID _______
Affiant Affiant

ERICSON C. BOLILAN
Valid ID _______
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 23 rd day of November 2023 at

San Fernando City, Pampanga, Philippines:

Doc No.
Page No. NOTARY PUBLIC
Book No.
Series of 2023.

22
ANNEX “A”

23
ANNEX “C”

24
ANNEX “D”

25
ANNEX “F”

26
ANNEX “I”

27
ANNEX “K”

28
ANNEX “M”

29
ANNEX “O”

30
ANNEX “Q”

31
ANNEX “S”

32
ANNEX “V”

33
ANNEX “X”

34
ANNEX “Y”

35
ANNEX “Z-1”

36
ANNEX “Z-2”

37
ANNEX “AA-1”

38
ANNEX “AA-2”

39
ANNEX “BB”

40
ANNEX “CC-1”

41
ANNEX “CC-2”

42
ANNEX “DD-1”

43
ANNEX “DD-2”

44
ANNEX “EE”

45
ANNEX “FF”

46
ANNEX “GG-1”

47
ANNEX “GG-2”

48
ANNEX “HH”

49
ANNEX “II”

50
51
ANNEX “JJ”

52
ANNEX “LL”

53