REaPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

NATIONAL LABOR AND RELATIONS COMMISSION
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
QUEZON CITY

MICHAEL DELOS SANTOS HARRIS,

Complainant,

-versus- NLRC-NCR CASE NO. 06-09345-17

WILL DECENA AND ASSOCIATES,INC./

1. WILFREDO L. DECENA
2. JEAN A. DECENA,
Respondents.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

REPLY POSITION PAPER

(For the Complainant)

COMPLAINANT, by himself and unto to this Honorable

Office most respectfully submits this Reply to Respondent’s
Position Paper, thus avers that:

1. Complainant denies the allegation of the

Respondents’ Position Paper in paragraph 3
alleging that the Corrective Preventive Action
Request (CPAR) was not acted nor resolved.
The proof of the scheduled plan and action was
needed as proof of records or evidence and
such must be acted with due process in the
renewal of the ISO accreditation. Complainant
reiterates that the records must be given to
him, but despite the absence of said records,
the Complainant resolved the said CPAR for the
benefit and interest of the corporation.

2. Complainant denies the allegation of the

Respondents’ Position Paper in paragraph 5, he
complied with the said Memorandum and
surrendered the said BPI Payroll ATM Card and
REPLY POSITION PAPER (COMPLAINANT)
Michael D. Santos vs Will Decena & Associates, Inc.
NLRC-NCR Case No. 06-09345-17

said this was acknowledged by the Company’s

HRD Assistant Mr. Jeric Cabildo. It is clear that
Complainant did not fail to follow the instruction
in the Memorandum issued by the Corporation.

3. Complainant denies paragraph 7 of the

Respondents’ Position Paper, Respondents act
of withholding the Complainant’s salary
compelled him to file his leave of absence as he
was financially constraint to sustain his needs in
going to and fro from work and also for his daily
living as his only source of his income is his
salary from the company.

4. Complainant denies paragraphs 10, 12, 13 and

14 of the Respondents’ Position Paper, he
reported back to work but his deployment was
withheld and he was told that by the HR that a
Memo and a Show Cause Order/ Notice to
Explain was sent to him, but in truth and in
fact, no such thing was received by the
Complainant. Instead, he was issued a
Preventive Suspension.

The basis of issuing a preventive suspension is

found in Section 8 of Rule XXIII, Book V of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code,
as amended by Department Order No. 9, Series
of 1997 which provides:

“Section 8. Preventive suspension. The

employer may place the worker concerned
under preventive suspension only if his
continued employment poses a serious and
imminent threat to the life or property of the
employer or of his co-workers.”

It can be seen that the issuance of the

Respondents of Preventive Suspension is
unreasonable and unjustifiable remedy to place
the Complainant in preventive suspension as
there was no serious and imminent threat to

2 |P a g e
REPLY POSITION PAPER (COMPLAINANT)
Michael D. Santos vs Will Decena & Associates, Inc.
NLRC-NCR Case No. 06-09345-17

the life and property that affects the company’s

operations.

5. Respondents’ allegation in paragraph 15 is also

denied having no basis in fact. The truth is that
I was contacted by the Admin. Vice President of
the Company who was then my boss way back
2012 and offered me to go back to the
Company and offered me to work. This is a
sufficient proof that I have a satisfactory
performance and that I am of good moral
attitude since I have established a good
working relationship with the company which
prompted them to rehire to work for them as
Health and Safety Manager. The trust and
confidence they have reposed in me is a clear
indication and proof that I observe good
conduct and attitude towards them and follows
rules and instructions directed to me.

6. Complainant denies paragraphs 16 and 17 of

the Respondents’ Position Paper having
committed serious violation of the
Complainant’s statutory and constitutional right
to due process for terminating the
Complainant’s Probationary Employment.

In the case of Court in Abbott Laboratories et.al

vs. Alcaraz, G.R. No. 192571, July 23, 2013, a
Probationary Employee, like a regular
employee, enjoys security of tenure. However,
in cases of probationary employment, aside
from just or authorized causes of termination,
an additional ground is provided under Article
295 of the Labor Code, i.e., the probationary
employee may also be terminated for failure to
qualify as a regular employee in accordance
with the reasonable standards made known by
the employer to the employee at the time of the
engagement. Thus, the services of an employee
who has been engaged on probationary basis
may be terminated for any of the following: (a)
a just or (b) an authorized cause; and (c) when
he fails to qualify as a regular employee in

3 |P a g e
REPLY POSITION PAPER (COMPLAINANT)
Michael D. Santos vs Will Decena & Associates, Inc.
NLRC-NCR Case No. 06-09345-17

accordance with reasonable standards

prescribed by the employer.

Corollary thereto, Section 6(d), Rule I, Book VI

of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code
provides that if the employer fails to inform the
probationary employee of the reasonable
standards upon which the regularization would
be based on at the time of the engagement,
then the said employee shall be deemed a
regular employee, viz.:

(d) In all cases of probationary employment,

the employer shall make known to the
employee the standards under which he will
qualify as a regular employee at the time of his
engagement. Where no standards are made
known to the employee at that time, he shall be
deemed a regular employee.

In other words, the employer is made to comply

with two (2) requirements when dealing with a
probationary employee: first, the employer
must communicate the regularization standards
to the probationary employee; and second, the
employer must make such communication at
the time of the probationary employee’s
engagement. If the employer fails to comply
with either, the employee is deemed as a
regular and not a probationary employee.

Furthermore, the Complainant was denied of his

right to due process of law for outright
dismissal by the Respondent Company. The
latter should have given the former proper
notice prior to his termination. A written notice
informing the Complainant the ground for his
dismissal as well as a subsequent notice
informing the complainant of the company’s
final decision to terminate its probationary
employment. In such a case, the Respondent
Company has been inconsistent with the rule;
hence his employment termination was not
lawful.

4 |P a g e
REPLY POSITION PAPER (COMPLAINANT)
Michael D. Santos vs Will Decena & Associates, Inc.
NLRC-NCR Case No. 06-09345-17

7. Respondents claim that the Company’s officers

should not be impleaded as party-respondents
hold no water.

As held by the Court in the case of Polymer

Rubber Corp. v. Salamuding, G.R. 185160, it
states that:

In labor cases, corporate directors and officers

are solidarily liable with the corporation for the
termination of employment of employees done
with malice or in bad faith.

As officers of the company, they can be

impleaded as party-respondents as they are
acting in the interest of the corporation.

8. Complainant is entitled to the payment of

backwages and damages. Due to the bad faith,
malice, discriminatory, unfair and disdain acts
of Respondents as discussed above, it caused
wounded feelings, embarrassment, humiliation,
emotional shock and sleepless nights to
Complainant entitling him of Moral Damages
and Exemplary Damages since dismissal was
effected in wanton, oppressive, or malevolent
manner.

Settled is the rule that 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 backwages,
inclusive of allowances and to his other benefits
or their monetary equivalent computed from
the time his compensation was withheld up to
the time of actual reinstatement. If
reinstatement is not possible, however, the
award of separation pay is proper.

In the case of Aliling v. Feliciano, citing Golden

Ace Builders v. Talde, the Court explained:

Thus, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled

to two reliefs: backwages and reinstatement.
The two reliefs provided are separate and

5 |P a g e
REPLY POSITION PAPER (COMPLAINANT)
Michael D. Santos vs Will Decena & Associates, Inc.
NLRC-NCR Case No. 06-09345-17

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.

9. The rest of the Respondents’ are mere conclusions of law

without factual basis in any material respect.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby respectfully

prayed that this Reply to Respondents’ Position Paper be duly
given due credence and consideration. Further, judgment be
rendered in favor of the Complainant.

Finally, Complainant respectfully prays for such other reliefs

that this office may deem just and equitable under the premises.

___ day of ____________ 2015 at City of San Jose Del

Monte, Bulacan, Philippines.

MICHAEL DELOS SANTOS HARRIS

Complainant

6 |P a g e
REPLY POSITION PAPER (COMPLAINANT)
Michael D. Santos vs Will Decena & Associates, Inc.
NLRC-NCR Case No. 06-09345-17

Copy Furnished:

Will Decena& Associates Inc.

Wilfredo L. Decena and
Jean A. Decena
#70 Tandang Sora Ave.,
Quezon City

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM

SHOPPING

I, MICHAEL DELOS SANTOS HARRIS, of legal age, widower,

and a resident of #293 Brgy. San Martin De Porres, City of San
Jose Del Monte under oath states that:

1. I am the Complainant in the instant case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Reply to

Respondents’ Position Paper;

3. That I have read and understood the contents thereof;

4. That the allegations therein are correct and true to the best
of my knowledge and belief and based on authentic records.

Done this ___ day of September 2017, City of San Jose Del
Monte, Bulacan.

MICHAEL DELOS SANTOS HARRIS

Affiant
I.D. ______________
Issued on __________ at _______

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___ day of

September 2017 in _____________________________ with the
affiant showing me his competent evidence of identity.

NOTARY PUBLIC

7 |P a g e