Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No.
Davao City

CHITO ZARAGOSA,
SRAB CASE NOS.
Complainant, __________
-versus-

PAULINA MIRANDA AND

NELSON MIRANDA
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - x

POSITION PAPER

RESPONDENT PAULINA MIRANDA AND NELSON

MIRANDA, by and thru its authorized representative, unto
this Honorable Office, most respectfully states that:

NATURE OF THE CASE

This is a complaint for illegal dismissal with money

claims and underpayment of salaries, 13 th month pay and
non-payment of service incentive leave, overtime pay,
separation pay and holiday pay.

THE PARTIES

Complainant Chito Zaragosa is of legal age, Filipino,

with residences as stated in their complaint.

Respondents Spouses Paulina Miranda and Nelson

Miranda, are of legal age, Filipino, with principal office
address at________________, Davao City.
 ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

Respondent-corporation posits that the instant case

should be dismissed on the following ground/s:

COMPLAINANT ZARAGOSA WAS

A SEASONAL EMPLOYEE WHO
EVENTUALLY DID NOT RETURN
TO HIS JOB WITH THE
MIRANDAS

Complainant Zaragosa started out as a tractor operator

in _____ 2007 of the land personally owned by the Spouses
Miranda for which he was paid on a pakyaw basis.
Thereafter, he worked as a maintainer until May 28, 2012
still paid on pakyaw basis as per Affidavit of
____________________ hereto attached as Annex A.
Thus, it is apparent that from the start of his employment
that Complainant Zaragosa was consistently been hired as a
seasonal worker and paid on a pakyaw basis.

The case of Abasolo, et. al. vs. NLRC, et.al. 1 touched

upon the status of seasonal workers during off-season or
those times they do not have work. Thus, the Supreme
Court declared to wit:

In the case at bar, while it may appear that

the work of petitioners is seasonal, inasmuch as
petitioners have served the company for many
years, some for over 20 years, performing
services necessary and indispensable to
LUTORCOs business, serve as badges of regular
employment. Moreover, the fact that petitioners
do not work continuously for one whole year but
only for the duration of the tobacco season does
not detract from considering them in regular
employment since in a litany of cases this Court
has already settled that seasonal workers who
are called to work from time to time and are
temporarily laid off during off-season are not
separated from service in said period, but are
merely considered on leave until re-employed.

1 GR 118475, November 29, 2000

 After May 28, 2012, Complainant Zaragosa did not
report work at the farm of Spouses Miranda in PLACE but
commenced his employment with Tagum Agricultural
Development Company, Inc. (TADECO) until August 2009.
After his stint at TADECO, he started working on the one
(1) or two (2) hectare farm of Almaca Cooperative located
____kilometers away from the Mirandas' farm as borne out
by the Affidavit of ________ hereto attached as ANNEX
B. It should be noted that the Mirandas' farm is a totally
separate and independent farm from that owned by the
Requillos which is located
___________________________________.

Then, Mr. Zaragosa continued his employment with the

Hospicia de Requillo from June 2012 until December 31,
2016. Thereafter, Mrs. Miranda offered work to Mr. Zaragosa
in the Mirandas' farm on January 2, 2017 however, the latter
refused. As seasonal workers are considered as on leave of
absence without pay until reemployment, in effect, Mr.
Zaragosa was on leave of absence without pay from the
Mirandas' farm from May 28 ,2012 to December 30,2016.

In the instant case, Mr. Zaragosa did not provide a

justifiable reason on his refusal to return to work when he
did not report for work at the Mirandas' farm after January
2, 2017.

As settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Exodus

International Construction Corporation, et.al v.Guillermo
Biscocho, et.al:

In cases of illegal dismissal, the employer bears the

burden of proof to prove that the termination was for a valid
or authorized cause, the employee must first establish by
substantial evidence the fact that he was dismissed. If there
is no dismissal, then there can be no as to the legality or
illegality thereof.

Here, it was only complainant Zaragosas

unsubstantiated conclusion that he was dismissed or he was
prevented from returning to work at Mirandas Farm.
Absence of any evidence or overt act proving the act of
dismissal, his claim of illegal dismissal cannot be sustained.
COMPLAINANT IS NOT
ENTITLED TO THE RELIEFS
SOUGHT.

With regard to the prescriptive period for money

claims, Article 291 of the Labor Code states:

Art. 291. MONEY CLAIMS. All money claims arising

from employer-employee relations accruing during the
effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3) years
from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise they
shall be forever barred.

Article 291 covers claims for overtime pay, holiday

pay, service incentive leave pay, bonuses, salary
differentials, and illegal deductions by an employer. It also
covers money claims arising from seafarer contracts.

The provision, however, does not cover "money claims"

consequent to an illegal dismissal such as backwages. It
also does not cover claims for damages due to illegal
dismissal. As this Court stated in Callanta v. Carnation, that
when one is arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of his job or
means of livelihood, the action instituted to contest the
legality of one's dismissal from employment constitutes, in
essence, an action predicated "upon an injury to the rights
of the plaintiff," these claims are governed by Article 1146
of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which provides:

Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within

four years:

(1) Upon injury to the rights of the plaintiff.

In the instant case, May 28, 2012 appeared to be the

date when the complainants employment was allegedly
terminated by the herein respondents. Evidently, the money
claims that he sought have already prescribed. Considering
the fact that his complaint representing the underpayment
of his salaries and 13th month pay and the non-payment of
his service incentive leave, separation pay, overtime pay
and holiday pay from the time of his alleged illegal dismissal
on May 28, 2012 was only filed on February 08, 2017.
Clearly, the money claim filed by the herein complainant was
filed beyond the three (3) year prescriptive period from the
time his cause of action accrued against the herein
respondents.

Likewise, herein complainant money claims arising

from the time he was illegally dismissed on May 28, 2012
was filed only on February 8, 2017. Clearly, the claims
filed by the herein complainant was filed beyond the four (4)
year prescriptive period from the time his cause of action
accrued against the herein respondents.

Evidently, complainant Zaragozas actuations were

contrary to the natural reaction of an aggrieved party. If he
was indeed an aggrieved party, he would not have waited
for more than three (3) years to sue herein Respondent.
There is no one to blame for his own predicament as it was
his own fault why his remedy and right of action have
already been prescribed and barred.

As settled by the Supreme Court in the case of

Montero vs Times Transportation Co., Inc.:

Although the constitution is committed to the policy of

social justice and the protection of the working class , it
does not necessarily follow that every labor dispute shall be
automatically decided in favor of the labor. The management
has also the right under the law.

Lastly on this point, basic in this jurisdiction is that

he who asserts a right must prove it. In labor disputes, the
evidence mandated by law are these relevant evidence
which a reasonable and unbiased mind would accept to
support a conclusion.2

In a similar setting, the Supreme Court expounded and

ruled that the onus probandi falls on the shoulders of
petitioner to establish or substantiate such claims by the
requisite quantum of evidence. In labor cases as in other
administrative proceedings, substantial evidence or such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
sufficient to support a conclusion is required. 3

2
Sevillana vs. I.T. (International) Corp., G.R. No. 99047. April 16, 2001
3
UST Faculty Union vs. UST, G.R. No. 180892, April 7, 2009
 In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof
necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence, i.e.,
that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Further,
the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial
evidence the allegations in his complaint. The basic rule is
that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to
proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation
likewise cannot be given credence. Hence, when the
complainant relies on mere conjectures and
suppositions, and fails to substantiate his allegations,
the administrative complaint must be dismissed for
lack of merit.4

Basically, allegations must be proven by sufficient

evidence because mere allegation is definitely not evidence.
Thus, it is incumbent upon the complainant to show proof
that he is entitled to the reliefs sought.

From the foregoing, it is most prudent that the instant

complaint against respondent Spouses Miranda should fail.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed that respondent Spouses Paulina Miranda and Nelson
Miranda be dropped from the complaint, in view of
prescription of the cause of action of complainant and his
refusal to return to work.

Such other reliefs, just and equitable under the

premises are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

4
Dr. Castor De Jesus vs. Rafael D. Guerrero III, et.al., G.R. No. 171491, September 4, 2009