ISAGANI Vs ROYAL-position Paper 1

Republic of the Philippines
Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region, Quezon City
PEDRAL RIVERA ISAGANI

Complainant,
-versus- NLRC NCR CASE NO. 05-06193-14

Hon. Galahad Makasiar
ROYALE FISHING CORP./NIÑO GATILA

Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
COMPLAINANT, through counsel, and unto the Honorable Office, most

respectfully submits this Position Paper and in support thereof, avers as follows:
THE PARTIES
COMPLAINANT is a Filipino, of legal age, with address c/o Campanilla and

Partners at Suite B 2nd Floor Overland Park Bldg., No. 245 Banawe St. cor. Quezon
Ave., Q.C where he could be served with summons and other processes.
Respondent ROYALE FISHING CORP. is company organized under

Philippine laws, while individual respondent NIÑO GATILA is the responsible owner /
manager thereof with address at Block 17, Lot 26-34, Phase II AB, Dalagang Bukid
St., Kaunlaran Village, Malabon, where they could be served with summons, notices
and other processes.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Complainant has been working for the respondents since January 15, 2010
as MASTER HATCHMAN of various fishing boats owned by the respondents. As
master hatchman, complainant has a 24 HOUR / ON CALL / STAY-IN work schedule
while at sea inside the fishing boat and receives a salary of only Php306 per day
while at port. No overtime pay, service incentive leave pay, 13 th month pay, holiday
pay, holiday or rest day premium was ever given to the complainant. As PROOF,
attached herewith are complainant’s Identification Card and pay slips as ANNEXES
A and B (and series), respectively.
The complainant has faithfully and diligently carried out all his duties with
respondent. However, in spite of this, he was illegally dismissed from service by the
respondent in April 8, 2014 without any justifiable ground and without due process.
According to the complainant, while at sea on said date, he was called through radio
by respondent’s personnel manager, Nino Gatila, and was instructed to report to the
office immediately. At the office, respondent Gatila told the complainant that he
1
should go on an indefinite and unpaid vacation ( “Magbakasyon ka muna.”). When he
asked why, respondent did not give him any explanation.
One week later, complainant went to the office to report for work but
respondent Gatila merely advised him to continue on his forced vacation.
Complainant pleaded to the respondents that he be put back to work but his pleas
fell on deaf ears. Respondent even warned the complainant “Huwag kang
magmadali, baka madehado ka. ” Another week went by and the complainant again
reported for work. This time, respondent Gatila told him that he should already start
applying for a job with other employers. ( “Maghanap ka na ng ibang
mapapasukan.”)
As complainant was no longer given any work, complainant was forced to file
this complaint for illegal dismissal. During the hearings of this case at the SENA,
respondent Gatila instructed the complainant to report for work. Accordingly,
complainant immediately reported for work sometime in May 2014 but this time, he
was already BARRED by the respondents’ security guard from entering the company
premises. Hence, this position paper.
THE ISSUES
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED BY

THE RESPONDENTS;
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO HIS
REINSTATEMENT WITH FULL BACK WAGES;
3. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO HIS MONEY
CLAIMS, PLUS DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES.
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION
COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED
Complainant no doubt was a REGULAR EMPLOYEE of respondents. His

work as a MASTER HATCHMAN OF respondents’ FISHING BOATS was necessary
and desirable to respondent’s usual business, a company engaged in the fishing
industry. This he did for the more than 4 YEARS. Being a REGULAR EMPLOYEE
of respondents, complainant is therefore entitled to SECURITY OF TENURE as
enshrined in the Constitution and protected by law. Thus, his subsequent dismissal
from employment without just cause is a violation of his right to security of tenure.
As explained by the Supreme Court in the case of JARDIN vs. NLRC [G.R. No.
119268. February 23, 2000]:
As consistently held by this Court, termination of employment MUST

be effected in accordance with law. The just and authorized causes for
termination of employment are enumerated under Articles 282, 283 and 284
of the Labor Code. The requirement of notice and hearing is set-out in Article
277 (b) of the said Code. Hence, petitioners, being employees of private
respondent, can be dismissed only for just and authorized cause, and after
affording them notice and hearing prior to termination. In the instant case,
2
private respondent had no valid cause to terminate the employment of
petitioners. Neither were there two (2) written notices sent by private
respondent informing each of the petitioners that they had been dismissed
from work. These lack of valid cause and failure on the part of private
respondent to comply with the twin-notice requirement underscored the
illegality surrounding petitioners’ dismissal. (Emphasis ours.)
In the case at bar, it is clear that the complainant was DISMISSED by the
respondents after he was told to go a FORCED VACATION without any valid reason.
When he pleaded to be reinstated, respondents ignored complainant’s pleas and told
him to start looking for work elsewhere. When he filed a complaint with the SENA,
respondent Gatila boasted to the hearing officer that the complainant can report to
the office at any time. But when the complainant reported for work, he was already
BARRED by the security officer from entering the company premises. Truly,
complainant was illegally dismissed from work. All of these acts committed by the
respondents against the complainant clearly made his continued employment
IMPOSSIBLE, forcing the complainant to file the instant case, akin to constructive
dismissal.
As ruled by the High Court: “Constructive dismissal exists where there is

cessation of work because "continued employment is rendered impossible,
unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in
pay" and other benefits. Aptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to
dismissal but made to appear as if it were not, constructive dismissal may, likewise,
exist if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer
becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any
choice by him except to forego his continued employment. (MORALES vs.
HARBOUR CENTRE PORT TERMINAL, INC., G.R. No. 174208, January 25, 2012)
It is important to note that during the hearings for mediation and conciliation
before the Honorable Arbiter, respondents NEVER DENIED that the complainant
was already terminated from employment. NO OFFER was made by the
respondents for him to return to work. Neither were the respondents willing to enter
into any form of settlement with the complainant.
COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT OF HIS MONEY CLAIMS
“The age-old rule governing the relation between labor and capital, or
management and employee, of a "FAIR DAY'S WAGE FOR A FAIR DAY'S LABOR"
remains as the basic factor in determining employees' wages. If there is no work
performed by the employee, there can be no wage or pay -- UNLESS, of course, the
laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out, suspended or
dismissed, or otherwise illegally prevented from working xxx” such as the instant
case. (see BERNARDINO V. NAVARRO vs. P.V. PAJARILLO LINER, INC. ( G.R. No.
164681, April 24, 2009)
It must be noted that as MASTER HATCHMAN, complainant was under a

24HOUR / ON CALL / STAY-IN WORK SCHEDULE when at sea while inside the
fishing boats of the respondents. He was given a salary BELOW MINIMUM WAGE.
3
Likewise, he was not given any 13th month pay (for 2014), overtime pay, nightshift
differential pay, holiday pay and holiday and rest day premium, to which he is legally
entitled to.
COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT & BACKWAGES
As a direct consequence of complainant’s unjust termination from service

without due process of law, the complainant is entitled to reinstatement with full back
wages and salaries. Back wages represent the compensation which an employee
could have earned but was not collected because of the unjust dismissal. In general,
it is granted on ground of equity for earnings lost due to illegally effected termination.
As clearly stated under Article 279 of the Labor Code, “ An employee who is
unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and to his full back wages inclusive of allowance,
and to his other benefits of their monetary equivalent computed from the time his
compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.”
Thus, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs: backwages

and reinstatement. The two reliefs provided are separate and distinct. In instances
where reinstatement is no longer feasible because of strained relations between the
employee and the employer, separation pay is granted. In effect, an illegally
dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if
reinstatement is no longer viable, and backwages. The normal consequences of
respondents’ illegal dismissal, then, are reinstatement without loss of seniority rights,
and payment of backwages computed from the time compensation was withheld up
to the date of actual reinstatement. Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an
option, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service
should be awarded as an alternative. The payment of separation pay is in addition to
payment of backwages. (MACASERO vs. SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL GASES
PHILIPPINES; G.R. No. 178524, January 30, 2009)
RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES
In illegal dismissal cases, moral and exemplary damages are awarded to

compensate the affected employee for diverse injuries such as mental anguish,
besmirched reputation, wounded feeling and social humiliation suffered as a
consequence of the termination.
In the case at bar, respondents act of forcing the complainant to take a

vacation and thereafter dismissing the complainant without a just cause and due
process is proof of bad faith on their part. More importantly, respondents’ acts of
terminating the employment without a valid cause or due process are serious
offenses tainted with bad faith as such actions are ultimately aimed at
CIRCUMVENTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF WORKERS TO
SECURITY OF TENURE. As a result of their unjust dismissal, the complainants
suffered severe mental anguish and sleepless nights on account of the sudden loss
of income to sustain his family. Clearly, the respondents are in bad faith for their
4
wanton and deliberate disregard of the law and are, therefore, liable for moral and
exemplary damages.
Finally, in the pursuit of justice, the complainant was forced to secure the
services of counsel, thereby incurring legal fees in the process. Accordingly,
respondents should also be ordered to pay attorney’s fees equal to ten percent of the
amount of wages recovered as provided for in Art. 111 of the Labor Code. 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 111 of the Labor Code;
Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules; and paragraph 7, Article
2208 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. (Kaisahan vs. Manila Water Company, G.R. NO. 174179, November 16,
2011)
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Office to render judgment in favor of the complainant and against the
respondents, as follows:
1. To declare the dismissal of the Complainant as ILLEGAL, the same having
been effected without a just cause and without due process;
2. To order the respondents to REINSTATE the complainant to his former
position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and if this is
no longer possible, to pay the complainant his SEPARATION PAY.
3. To order the respondents SOLIDARILY liable to pay the complainant his
full BACK WAGES, inclusive of allowances and other benefits to be
computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to his
actual reinstatement;
4. To pay the complainant his money claims consisting UNDERPAYMENT of
salary, and non-payment of 13th month pay (for 2014), overtime pay,
nightshift differential pay, holiday pay and holiday and rest day premium;
5. To award the complainant DAMAGES plus Attorney’s Fees.
Other just and equitable remedies are likewise prayed for.
Quezon City, October 20, 2014.

.
ATTY. PEARLITO B. CAMPANILLA

Suite B 2nd Floor Overland Park Bldg.,
No. 245 Banawe St. cor. Quezon Ave., Quezon City
Roll 37522 / IBP Life 010564 2-3-12 Pasig
PTR 9019138 1-7-14 QC / MCLE IV - 0018064
Copy furnished by mail /courier due to time constraints and distance to:
ROYALE FISHING CORP. / NIÑO GATILA
Block 17, Lot 26-34, Phase II AB, Dalagang Bukid St., Kaunlaran Village, Malabon

ISAGANI Vs ROYAL-position Paper 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISAGANI Vs ROYAL-position Paper 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISAGANI Vs ROYAL-position Paper 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

PEDRAL RIVERA ISAGANI

-versus- NLRC NCR CASE NO. 05-06193-14

ROYALE FISHING CORP./NIÑO GATILA

COMPLAINANT, through counsel, and unto the Honorable Office, most

COMPLAINANT is a Filipino, of legal age, with address c/o Campanilla and

Respondent ROYALE FISHING CORP. is company organized under

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED BY

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED

Complainant no doubt was a REGULAR EMPLOYEE of respondents. His

As consistently held by this Court, termination of employment MUST

As ruled by the High Court: “Constructive dismissal exists where there is

COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT OF HIS MONEY CLAIMS

It must be noted that as MASTER HATCHMAN, complainant was under a

COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT & BACKWAGES

As a direct consequence of complainant’s unjust termination from service

Thus, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs: backwages

RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES

In illegal dismissal cases, moral and exemplary damages are awarded to

In the case at bar, respondents act of forcing the complainant to take a

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this

Other just and equitable remedies are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, October 20, 2014.

ATTY. PEARLITO B. CAMPANILLA

You might also like