Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. III
City of San Fernando, Pampanga

CHARLES PEROLINO,
Complainant,

-versus- NLRC CASE NO. RAB III-02-32496-21

FCF MANUFACTURING CORP,

MS. HAZEL CHOW
GENERAL MANAGER
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
(for the Complainant)

Complainant, by counsel, unto this Honorable Office, most

respectfully submits this Position Paper, and in support thereof states:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Our Constitution statutes and Jurisprudence uniformly guarantee to

every employee or worker TENURIAL SECURITY, this means is that an
employer shall not dismiss an employee except for a just or authorized
cause and ONLY AFTER DUE PROCESS IS OBSERVED, GR NO.
212616, 10 JULY 2017

PARTIES

1. Complainant CHARLES PEROLINO (“Perolino” for brevity) is

of legal age, Filipino, and resides at Mariveles, Bataan. He may be served
with summons, orders, resolutions, decisions and other legal processes
of the Honorable Office at B-6-F, Yakal St. FAB, Barangay Malaya,
Mariveles Bataan.

2. Respondent FCF MANUFACTURING CORP. is a corporation

duly registered 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 Freeport Area of
Bataan, Mariveles, Bataan.

3. Individual Respondent Ms. Hazel Chow (“Respondent Chow”

for brevity) is of legal age, Chinese, and may be served with summons,
orders, resolutions, decisions and other legal processes of the Honorable
Office at his office address at Freeport Area of Bataan, Mariveles, Bataan.
She is the General Manager of respondent Corporation.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

4. The complainant is a regular employee of the respondent

corporation, he was hired on September 2017 and works as a PACKING
RECEIVER in the finishing department, receiving a salary of
P420.00/day. He was illegally dismissed on 23 January 2020,
complainant was an ACTIVE UNION MEMBER tasked to campaign for
their coming Certification Election at the time of his dismissal, attached

1
herewith photo copy of the complainant’s “Company ID” marked as
“Annex A”.

5. The Respondent Corporation was among the TOP Company

operating in the Freeport Area of Bataan and employing more or less
4,000 skilled workers of branded luxury bags and wallets nonetheless its
Employees/Union member has yet to receive benefit and worse the
registered UNION was not recognized by the Respondent.

6. The complainant sometime on January 2020 at the end of

his shift, after his extended 2 hours exhausted overtime work, Perolino
was about to pass through the exit gate of the company where he was
subject to standard inspection procedure by the security personnel, in
the course thereof, the Security Guard on-duty, found in his open pocket
a piece of used “ballpen” and complainant was asked about it, and he
explained that he used the “ballpen” in receiving materials and just
forgot to put it in his table drawer until it was notice by the guard on-
duty on his way out of the Company.

7. Subsequently, a week after while Complainant is performing

work at his working area , he was called by the respondent [without the
assistance of his Union President and/or Grievance Officer], upon
reaching management office, a report of the incident was presented, on
alleged attempt to bring out “Ballpen” base on the report of the Security
Personnel, complainant refuted and stated that he has no intention to
bring out the questioned item, and 2 days after, Respondent informed
Perolino of its decision to terminate his employment.

8. In Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the

Labor Code, Rule XIV ON TERMINATION OF EMLOYMENT:

SECTION 1. Security of tenure and due process. — No workers

shall be dismissed except for a just or authorized cause provided
by law and after due process.

SECTION 2. Notice of dismissal. — Any employer who seeks to

dismiss a worker shall furnish him a written notice stating the
particular acts or omission constituting the grounds for his
dismissal. In cases of abandonment of work, the notice shall be
served at the worker's last known address.

xxx

SECTION 5. Answer and hearing. — The worker may answer the

allegations stated against him in the notice of dismissal within a
reasonable period from receipt of such notice. The employer shall
afford the worker ample opportunity to be heard and to
defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so
desires.

SECTION 6. Decision to dismiss. — The employer shall

immediately notify a worker in writing of a decision to
dismiss him stating clearly the reasons therefor.

9. The complainant did not expect of his dismissal, as he

explained to the respondent that the questioned item was just an
ordinary ballpen where he can buy it in a sari-sari store and that the
complainant just forgot to put it in his table drawer, in many ruling
on dismissal cases, for an act to justify an employee's dismissal, it
should have been proven, with substantial evidence, at the time he
was dismissed. Otherwise, the dismissal would not be for just cause.

2
 10. Complainant up to the time of his dismissal suffered
wounded feelings and anxiety, complainant lost everything for his
self and family, worse, at the time of the COVID PANDEMIC

11. Aggrieved, the complainant sought the intervention of this

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

ISSUES

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT WAS

ILLEGALLY DISMISSED;

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT IS

ENTITLED TO MORAL, EXEMPLARY DAMAGE AND
MONETARY CLAIMS;

III. WHETHER OR NOT AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S

FEE IS REASONABLE

ARGUMENTS / DISCUSSION

The complainant was illegally

dismissed. The respondents
unjustly dismissed the
complainant. More so did not
observe any of the substantial and
procedural rights of the
complainant.

12. In termination cases, the burden of proving just and

valid cause for dismissing an employee from her employment rest
upon the employer. The employer’s failure to discharge this burden
results in the finding that the dismissal is unjustified.

Article 297 [282]. of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes
for termination. It provides:

ARTICLE 297 [282]. 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.

XXX XXX XXX

13. Clearly, from the record of the case, the complainant

did not commit any Gross and habitual, even a Serious misconduct or

3
 Willful disobedience offenses, in fact, it was the first time the
complainant charged of UNAUTHORIZED POSSESION OF COMPANY
PROPERTIES OR MATERIALS”.

14. Further, a case of illegal dismissal, the employer has the

burden of proving that the dismissal of an employee are for valid and
legitimate grounds, failure of the employer to overcome this burden of
proof, the employee's dismissal shall no doubt be tantamount to
unlawful dismissal.

15. In this case, both the FCF MANUFACTURING CORP and Ms.
HAZEL CHOW are clearly guilty of bad faith by dismissing the
complainant without substantial and procedural due process or even
a notice for a non-serious allegation charged against him.

16. However, in light of the underlying circumstances which led

to Complainant illegal dismissal, it is clear that an atmosphere of
animosity and antagonism now exists between Complainant on the
one hand, and Respondent on the other, which therefore calls for the
application of the doctrine of strained relations. "Under the doctrine of
strained relations, the payment of separation pay is considered an
acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no
longer desirable or viable. On one hand, such payment liberates the
employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment.
On the other hand, it releases the employer from the grossly
unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could
no longer trust." Thus, it is more prudent that Complainant be
awarded separation pay, instead of being reinstated, as to be
computed by the Honorable Labor arbiter.

The complainant is entitled to his

monetary claims.

On the issue of backwages:

17. It has been established from the discussion above that the
complainant was illegally dismissed. Henceforth, he is entitled to
separation pay.

18. 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’s dismissal up to the finality of this case.

On the issue of damages:

21. It is evident that the dismissal of complainant was tainted by

bad faith on the part of the respondents. The respondents failed to
observe the substantial and procedural due process requirements of
the law.

22. The complainant suffered sleepless nights and anxiety,

having lost his job which is his ONLY source of livelihood for his
Family. As such, this humble complainant prays that the Honorable
Labor Arbiter penalize the respondents with Moral Damages as he
may deem fit.

23. 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
actions1. Hence, it is most respectfully prayed that the Honorable
1
Article 228, New Civil Code of the Philippines.

4
 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:

24. In the case of GR No. 203328, the complainant was

constrained to hire a legal services to protect his rights and seek relief
from the injustices she suffered in the hands of his employer. Hence,
an award of attorney’s fees is REASONABLE and proper in the case at
bar.

25. Finally, we close with an excerpt from the Supreme Court,

through the eloquent pen of then Justice Isagani Cruz, in the case of
Cebu Royal Plant San Miguel Corp vs. Minister of Labor, G.R. No.
L-58639, 12 August 1987, wherein the Supreme Court emphatically
stated:

“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.”

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises duly considered, it is most respectfully

prayed that the Honorable Labor Arbiter RULE that the complainant was
ILLEGALLY DISMISSED and ORDER the Respondents to pay the
complainant his monetary claims.

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

San Fernando City, 29th of March 2021.

Assisted by:

______________________________________________________
CHRISTIAN OCAMPO
Regional Coordinator, Region III
National Federation of Labor
9350-FED-LC

_______________________________________________________
CHARLES PEROLINO
Complainant
LTO DRIVERS LICENCE NO. CO2-18-015483

COPY FURNISHED

FCF MANUFACTURING CORP,

MS. HAZEL CHOW

5
GENERAL MANAGER
Freeport Area of Bataan, Mariveles, Bataan

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, CHARLES PEROLINO, of legal age, Filipino and resides at B-6-F, Yakal

St, FAB, Barangay Malaya, Mariveles, Bataan, after being sworn in
accordance with law, hereby depose and say:

1. I am the Complainant in the foregoing case.

2. I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing case

and I have read and understood the contents thereof and the allegations
therein are true and correct based on available records and of my own
personal knowledge.

3. I 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.

4. If I 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, I undertake to report that fact
within five (5) days therefrom to the Honorable Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

____________ at _________________.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ______________ at

Mariveles, Bataan, affiants exhibiting her respective competent proof of
identity above.

Doc. No. ______

Page No. ______
Book No. ______
Series of 2021.