Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor & Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

EVANGELINE JANSON PALTINGCA

Complainant,

- versus – NLRC NCR CASE NO. NCR-05-06483-14

DANIEL MERCHANDISING/ MR. DANIEL GO/

MRS. JUANITA GO
Respondents.
X -----------------------------------------------------X

POSITION PAPER
FOR THE RESPONDENTS
RESPONDENTS, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Office,
respectfully state:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a case for illegal deduction –P50 penalty for not wearing uniform, illegal
suspension – 7 days and 15 days,, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. DANIEL MERCHANDISING is a single proprietorship owned and registered

under the name of Mr. Daniel Q. Go with business address located at No. 11
Engineering Street, Araneta Subdivision, Potrero, Malabon while respondent
Juanita Go is the operation manager of Daniel Merchandising;

2. The complainant, EVANGELINE JANSON PALTINGCA was hired as an

inventory auditor with a daily salary rate of P466.00;

3. That on September 20, 2012, the company implemented a company regulation

on the strict compliance of uniform to all of the employees in order to protect the
business from entry of unauthorized persons inside the company premises, to
prevent lost of company goods and as a protection also to its employees; (Annex
“A”)

4. The company also formulated Company Rules and Regulations which were
dissimilated and made known to all employees for strict compliance and with the
corresponding sanctions for every infraction or violation; (Annex “B”)
PAGE TWO

5. As stated by the complainant, she is working with the company as of June 2004
and during that long span of time with the company, the complainant must or
shall have the full knowledge of her duty and obligation to abide and comply with
the company rules and regulations;

6. The woes and problems with the complainant started when she was repeatedly
warned due to her non-compliance with the company policy of – WEARING
UNIFORM;

7. That despite of numerous warnings, she repeated disregard the said company
policy prompting management to issue a memorandum dated February 19, 2014
requiring her to explain in writing she should not be penalized for her utter
disregard of company policy of wearing uniform; (Annex “C”)

8. In her explanation, she admitted the fact that she did not wear the company
uniform most of the time for the simple reason that she was no longer used to
wearing of uniform due to flimsy and unacceptable reasons; (Annex “D”)

9. That with her admission, the company was left with no other option but to impose
the proper sanction as provided for under the Revised Company Riles and
Regulations – 7 DAYS SUSPENSION;

10. On the second issue of the complainant’s 15 days suspension, the complainant
on May 12, 2014 went out of the office at 12:00 noon but went back to the office
at 1:53 p.m. to attend to her personal business but without informing the office of
such fact.. The complainant was paid the corresponding full amount of her wage
for that day including her overtime pay which was a clear case of dishonesty;

11. That on the said date and upon verification of the complainant’s timecard, she
caused the erasure of the signature of the OIC in Sta. Cruz Branch thinking that
she could claim overtime pay by virtue of the said signature? – again a clear
case of dishonesty and blatant disregard and violation of company rules. (Annex
“E”)
PAGE THREE

12. That due the above mentioned incidents, the complainant was issued two (2)
MEMORANDUM requiring her to explain in writing why no disciplinary action
should be meted on her but just the same, her explanations were simple, flimsy
and unacceptable excuses; (Annexes “F” & “G”)

ISSUES

1. Whether the complainant was illegally suspended?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to moral damages and attorney’s fees?

DISCUSSION/ARGUMENTS

First Issue

Whether the complainant was illegally suspended?

X ------------------------------------------------------ X
The complainant was not illegally suspended. Her suspensions were for just and
valid causes clearly embodied and provided for under the Company Rules &
Regulations.
Anent to this is the fact that as early as September 28, 2008, the complainant,
EVANGELINE PALTINGCA was even a signatory to the memorandum which required
employees to strictly comply with the wearing of the proper uniform. Under the said
memorandum, a P5.00 per week shall be given to those employees who shall comply
with the said directive and a P5.00 deduction who shall fail to comply. (Annex “H”)

All business establishment and employers have the management prerogative to

formulate, establish and implement company rules and regulations to ensure the proper
conduct and orderly operation of the business entity as well as to provide safeguards
and avoid loss of company properties.

Without such guidelines to follow, there would be anarchy within the organization
and business premises and in effect would be detrimental to the proper operation of the
business.

The complainant’s suspensions were base on valid and legal grounds and after
complying with the required procedural due process of notice and hearing.
PAGE FOUR

Secondly, the acts of complainant constituted gross misconduct and willful and
deliberate intention to disobey company rules and regulations.

The Labor Code under Article 3 on the declaration of policy provides that the
State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work
opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and regulate the relations between
workers and employees.

The Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of
the working class. But it should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be
automatically decided in favor of labor. Management has its own rights which as such,
are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play. Out of its concern
for those with less privilege in life, the Supreme Court has inclined more often than not
toward the worker and upheld his cause in his conflicts with the employer. Such
favoritism, however, has not blinded the Court to the rule that justice is in
every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established
facts and the applicable law and doctrine (Santos –vs- Aguinaldo Development
Corporation, G.R. 48926 December 24, 1987).

Second Issue

Whether complainant is moral damages

and attorney’s fees
X------------------------------------------X

Moral damages and attorney’s fees are only awarded when the violation of
employee’s right is so gross as to constitute denial of due process. In this particular
case, the suspensions were base on valid and legal grounds and in compliance with the
procedural due process as provided for under the Labor Code.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed

that after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint
be dismissed for lack of merit and legal basis.

Valenzuela City for Quezon City, July 28, 2014

PAGE FIVE

ATTY. WILLIAM N. REYES

Counsel for the Respondents
27 Little Baguio Street,
Marulas, Valenzuela City
Roll No. 47608
PTR No. 2730002 – Jan. 2, 2014
IBP No. 925462 – 11-13-13 CALMANA
MCLE Compliance No. IV - 0022734
December 19, 2013
TIN: 111-866-028

Copy furnished:
EVANGELINE JANSON PALTINGCA
Complainant

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

VALENZUELA CITY ) S.S.
X -------------------------------------------- X

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, DANIEL Q. GO , of legal age, married, filipino and with business address located at
No. 11 Engineering Street, Araneta Subdivision, Potrero, Malabon , under oath depose and
state:

That I am the owner and proprietor of Daniel Merchandising. and one of the respondents
in this case;

I have caused the preparation and filing of the hereinabove Respondents’ Position Paper

That all the allegations contained herein are true and correct of my knowledge;

I have not filed any other case nor one is pending before the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals or any tribunal;

That in case I should learn that a similar case is filed or pending before the Supreme
Court, Court of Appeals or any tribunal, I undertake to inform this Honorable office within five (5)
days from such knowledge.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my signature on this
July 28, 2014 at Valenzuela City

MR. DANIEL Q. GO
affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this _____________, affiant exhibited to me

his SSS I.D bearing No. 03-6055139-6 a valid proof of identity with his name and signature
thereon.

Notary Public

Doc. No. ______;

Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of 2014..