Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch
Cordillera Administrative Region
Baguio City

Alfredo R. Gengania, Jr.,

Dennis B. Mercurio,
Francisco M. Breganio and
Elpidio C. Estayo
Complainants,

-vs- NLCR CASE NOS. 04-0226-10

04-0226-10

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc.

and/or Natividad P. Nisce,
Respondents,
x-------------------------------------x

CONSOLIDATED POSITION PAPER

(for the complainants)

Complainants through counsel and unto this Honorable Office respectfully

submit the following position paper and hereto state, viz:

THE PARTIES

Complainants are all of legal age, Filipinos, married and residents in the
different areas of northern Luzon. Summons, orders or other processes from this
Honorable Office may be served at: BASA BALAGTEY LAW OFFICES, 1st flr.
Abriol Bldg., Benitez Court cpd., Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio City.

Respondent Philippine Rabbit Bus Line Inc. (PRBL for brevity) is a

common carrier registered under the name Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines as
represented by its manager Natividad Nisce with office address at Governor pack
road, Baguio City.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Complainants are former drivers and conductors of PRBL. They were all
thrown by respondents into the gulf of unemployment without valid reasons.
Worst, PRBL management refused them entry in the work premises when they
pleaded to return to their respective jobs. Their individual narratives as to their
illegal termination are stated below.

For complainant Alfredo Gengania, Jr.

Complainant Gengania Jr. was employed as a bus driver on October of

1999. His regular route was Baguio City to Avenida, Manila and vice-versa. On
the 2nd quarter of 2009, however, he was not allowed to drive despite the
presence of buses available for him to drive. He continued patiently returning to
respondent with a hope that he be assigned a bus to drive but respondent
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines just treated him nothing to exist up to the present.

For complainant Dennis Mercurio.

Complainant Mercurio was employed as a bus driver on October 23, 2002.

His regular route was Baguio City to the province of Abra and vice-versa. After
working for almost five (5) years, he was told by PRBL that his services are no
longer required by the company. Upon inquiry on why he was being terminated
without any valid grounds, PRBL could not give any legal justification.
Complainant went to PRBL for reconsideration but PRBL just told him that there
are no bus units available for him. Up to this date, no termination letter or notice
was given him to justify his separation from service.

For complainant Francisco Breganio.

Complainant Breganio was employed as bus conductor on May 13, 1980.

His regular route was Baguio City to Avenida, Manila and vice-versa. Sometime in
2007, the regular driver of the bus which he was the conductor was terminated
for unknown reason. After his driver’s termination, the new driver hired another
conductor. Complainant insisted to go back to work and begged the other bus
drivers to get him as their conductor. His regular status as a bus conductor for
more than twenty three (23) years was turned into a reserve bus conductor
status. Complainant did not complain to this change of work status as his job
was the only source of income for his family but in July of 2007 PRBL issued his
walking papers.
For complainant Elpidio Estayo.

Complainant Estayo was employed as bus driver in December 1995. His

regular route was Baguio City to Avenida, Manila and vice-versa. He worked for
the company for almost fifteen (15) years. On February 19, 2010, he was also
terminated by PRBL without any valid or legal justifications.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

These cases were initially filed on April 27 and April 30, 2010 respectively.
Both cases were consolidated and preliminary mandatory conferences were
scheduled for purposes of possible settlement.

On June 22, 2010, the last mandatory conference was held and no
settlement was reached by both parties. Hence, the submission of position
papers on or before July 15, 2010.

ISSUES

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS ARE

GUILTY OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.

WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANTS ARE

ENTITLED TO THEIR MONETARY CLAIMS.

WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANTS ARE

ENTITLED TO DAMAGES and
REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES.

For being closely interrelated, we beg to discuss all the issues jointly.

Complainants are entitled to the protection granted by our constitution for

the employment of workers. The Philippine Constitution clearly states:

“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or

property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”
(Article III, Section 1).

“The State shall afford full protection to labor, local

and overseas, organized and unorganized, and
 promote full employment and equality of employment
opportunities for all.” (Article XIII, Section 3).

This is the reason why the Labor Code, in conformity with the
Constitutional mandate, laid down the procedure to effect a valid dismissal, viz:

“xxx
Section. 2. Security of tenure. (a) In cases of
regular employment, the employer shall not terminate
the services of an employee except for just or
authorized causes as provided by law, and subject to
the requirements of due process.
Xxx
(d) In all cases of termination of employment,
the following standards of due process shall be
substantially observed:
For termination of employment based on just
causes as defined in Article 282 of the Labor Code:
(i) A written notice served on the employee
specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and
giving said employee reasonable opportunity within
which to explain his side.
(ii) A hearing or conference during which the
employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if
he so desires is given opportunity to respond to the
charge, present his evidence, or rebut the evidence
presented against him.
(iii) A written notice of termination served on
the employee, indicating that upon due consideration
of all the circumstances, grounds have been
established to justify his termination.
Section 3. Reinstatement – An employee who
is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to
reinstatement without loss to seniority rights and to
back wages.
xxx.” (Book VI, Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules)

In the case at hand, no administrative hearing was conducted prior to the

illegal termination. What is more bothering is the fact that no just or authorized
causes were present to warrant the dismissal of the complainants.

An employer may only terminate the services of its employee for a just or
authorize cause as provided for by our Labor Code.
 “ARTICLE 282. Termination by employer. — An
employer may terminate an employment for any of the
following just 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. “

When complainants were merely dismissed without any valid cause or

without any administrative investigation, this is a clear violation of complainants’
constitutional right to due process.

For dismissing the complainants without observing both the substantive

and procedural due process set forth by law, complainants are entitled
reparation in the form of damages. The amount of which is left to the sound
discretion of this Honorable Office.

With respect to attorney’s fees, complainants firmly submit that an award

of attorney’s fees is warranted since they were unquestionably compelled to
litigate with the respondent to seek vindication. In the case of Philippine National
Construction Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 1
the
Honorable Supreme Court held.

"It is settled that in actions for recovery of wages or

where an employee was forced to litigate and, thus,
incur expenses to protect his rights and interest, the
award of attorney’s fees is legally and morally
justifiable."

Undeniably, the complainants have to secure the services of the

undersigned counsel for a fee for the redress of his legitimate grievances.

1
Philippine National Construction Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 277
SCRA 91
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Office that

after due consideration of the foregoing, a decision should be issued declaring

Complainants to have been illegally dismissed from employment and order

respondents to:

1. Reinstate Complainants to their former position without loss of

seniority rights;

2. Pay Complainants their full backwages, their respective 13 th month

pays for the year when they were illegally dismissed, and other benefits from the

time of their dismissal up to their actual reinstatement;

3. Pay Complainants reasonable moral and exemplary damages plus 10%

of the total award as attorney’s fees.

Other relief just and equitable under premises are also most respectfully

prayed for.

Respectfully submitted this 14th day of July, 2010 in Baguio City.

BASA BALAGTEY LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the complainant
Benitez Court
Magsaysay ave., Baguio city

by:

MILTON L. BALAGTEY
IBP NO.767469/01-08-09/Baguio City
PTR No. 2266915/01-08-09/Baguio City
Roll No. 45247/05-08-00
MCLE Compliance No. III-0000794
COPY FURNISHED:

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines

Governor pack road, Baguio City

Explanation

Respondents were served a copy of this Position Paper by registered mail

due to distance constraints and lack of office personnel to effect personal
service.

MILTON L. BALAGTEY