REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT CITY OF PASIG BRANCH 68

RYAN B. SUAREZ, Plaintiff,

- versus -

Civil Case No. ______ For : Illegal Dismissal

ABC CORPORATION and JOSE D. CRUZ, Respondents. x --------------------------------------- x POSITION PAPER RESPONDENTS, through the undersigned counsel, unto the Honorable Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig Branch 68 most respectfully submit this position paper detailing the facts and legal basis on the nonliability of the respondent for illegal dismissal charge of the plaintiff. THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff RYAN B. SUAREZ is of legal age, Filipino and with residence at No. 22, San Jose St., Pasig City; 2. Respondent ABC CORPORATION, is a corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws, engaged in the business of importing, buying, selling, and retailing consumer products with principal office address at Makati Avenue, Makati City; and the respondent JOSE D. CRUZ being the President of said corporation at the same address where they may be served with processes of this Honorable Office.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE 1. Respondent ABC Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws. It is engaged in the business of importing, buying, selling, and retailing consumer products with principal office address at Makati Avenue, Makati City; and respondent Jose D. Cruz being the President thereof. 2. Respondent ABC Corporation hired Plaintiff Suarez in 2007 as probationary to regular employee and was designated as Manager of the Accounting and Finance Department on January 2012. 3. While Plaintiff assumes the position of Manager, Respondent Company noticed irregularities in some company transactions wherein materials and products were bought and several payments to third parties were made through the instruction and approval of Plaintiff Suarez, without going through the Board for approval. 4. On January 31, 2013, Respondent Company advised Plaintiff of the reports they received on irregular transactions and conveyed a Notice of Preventive Suspension to him which subjected him to disciplinary process and investigation. 5. On February 15, 2013, Respondent Company gave Plaintiff a Notice to Explain, asking him to submit a written explanation within 5 days regarding the allegations mentioned; 6. On February 28, 2013, while Respondent was still finalizing its decision on Plaintiffs case, a memorandum was issued by the Respondent Company extending Plaintiffs suspension. However, the company still paid him his salary by depositing it to his bank account. 7. On March 5, 2013 the Respondent Company issued a Notice of Termination which was sent via registered mail to Plaintiffs home address. Sufficient evidence was found proving Plaintiffs involvement. Plaintiff is found to be guilty of serious misconduct, violation of company rules and policies, and fraud against the company. 8. On March 10, 2013, Respondent received summons from the National Labor Relations Commission filed by Plaintiff for alleged Illegal Dismissal by Respondent Company and its President.

ISSUES I. WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM EMPLOYMENT WHETHER OR NOT THE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION OF THE PLAINTIFF AND ITS EXTENSION WAS UNJUST AND INVALID WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT OF ABC CORPORATION SHOULD BE HELD PERSONALLY OR SOLDARILY LIABLE WITH THE COMPANY WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO MONETARY CLAIMS AND DAMAGES DISCUSSION PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM EMPLOYMENT 1. Respondent ABC Corporation, as an organized and existing Corporation under Philippine Laws, holds indispensable rights to hire, dismiss, and discipline employees. In the same way, employees also have the right to security of tenure, subject only for dismissal on grounds defined in the Labor Code and after the observance of the appropriate procedural due process by the employer. 2. For the Respondent Company to validly dismiss an employee from his job it should be for a Just Cause provided by law and procedural requirements must be complied with. As explicitly provided for in Article 282 of the Labor Code on Termination by Employer, an employer may terminate an employment for: (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 employee of his duties;

II.

III.

IV.

(c) Fraud or willful breach of 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 or his family or his duly authorized representative; and (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing. 3. Subsequently the Twin Notice Rule Procedure for termination based on just causes must also be observed. (a) Serve the first written notice on the employees containing the specific ground/s for termination and a directive that they are given the opportunity to submit their written explanation within a reasonable period. (b) After serving the first notice, the employers should schedule and conduct a hearing or conference wherein the employees will be given the opportunity to: 1. Explain and clarify their defenses to the charge against them; 2. Present evidence in support of their defenses; and 3. Rebut the evidence presented against them by the management. (c) During the hearing or conference, the employees are given the chance to defend themselves personally, with the assistance of a representative or counsel of their choice. Moreover, this conference or hearing could be used by the parties as an opportunity to come to an amicable settlement. Note however, that in a recent case decide by the Supreme Court, a hearing or conference is not mandatory. It is enough that the employee is given an opportunity to be heard, which could be through submission of position papers or other evidence. (d) After determining that termination of employment is justified, the employers shall serve the employees a written notice of termination indicating that: 1. All circumstances involving the charge against the employees have been considered; and 2. Grounds have been established to justify the severance of their employment 4. From the foregoing facts, Respondent ABC Corporation validly terminated Plaintiff Suarez on the grounds that it had observed the appropriate procedural due process on employees who are subject to termination. A written notice advising Plaintiff of the specific ground/s for termination and a directive giving him the opportunity to submit a written explanation within a reasonable period was executed by the Respondent
4

Company. Also, the Plaintiff was a Notice to explain on February 15, 2013 giving him opportunity to elucidate and clarify his defense on the charge against him. It is emphasized by the Supreme Court that a hearing or conference is not mandatory. It is enough that the employee is given an opportunity to be heard, which could be through submission of position papers or other evidence. Thus, the judgment of the Respondent Company is not just any arbitrary decision without just basis but a result of a due process based on the procedure provided by law.