Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

ROWENA I. LAMPANO, ET.AL.,

Complainants.

-versus- NCR CASE NO. 10-15505-12

Arbiter Marita Padolina

VXI INC./ APRIL ONG,

Respondent.
x-- - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - -x

POSITION PAPER
(OF COMPLAINANT THERESA LOURDES MARIE T. ALMAQUER)

COMES NOW, complainant THERESA LOURDES MARIE T. ALMAQUER,

through counsel and unto this Honorable Office most respectfully states that:

PARTIES

1. Complainant THERESA LOURDES MARIE T. ALMAQUER is of legal

age, Filipino, with city address at Lot 3 Star Apple St., Gen. T. De Leon,
Valenzuela City, where they can be served with notices, orders, pleadings and
other processes;

2. Respondent VXI Inc, is a corporation organized and existing under the

laws of the Republic of the Philippines with office address at 3 rd Floor Waltermart
Edsa Muñoz Quezon City, where it may be served with notices, orders and other
processes;

3. Individual respondent April Ong, of legal age, status unknown, Filipino

citizen with office address as that of the respondent company;

STATEMENT OF FACTS

4. Respondent company is a call center and the complainant Almaquer

was hired as a call center agent on June 18, 2012 along with complainants
Kathryn B. Sanguyo and Maria Liza D. Clemente;

5. After undergoing a month long training, complainant was tasked to do

actual call center jobs with the corresponding salary and fringe benefits as follows:

a. Basic monthly salary of Php 18,000.00 or Php 900.00 a day;

b. 13th month pay of Php 18,000.00
1
 c. Bonus of Php 5,000 a month for perfect attendance;
d. 20% Night Shift Differential Pay based on the daily pay which is
Php 180 a day;
e. 5% Mid Shift Differential Pay based on the daily pay which is Php
45.00 a day;

(Attached as ANNEX “A” is an Employment Change Notice to prove the

foregoing);

6. Complainants are working nights beginning 10 o clock p.m. until 6 o

clock a.m. for five days a week;

7. On October 9, 2012, the complainant was faithfully doing her job when
she was told by their supervisor to logged off her computer and to report to the
conference room;

8. For several hours, complainant, along with her co-complainants in the

case, were made to wait until finally, at about 6 o clock a.m. they were told by a
staff from the Human Resource Department of the company that they are already
DISMISSED from work;

9. Complainants then were escorted out of the company premises by the

same personnel and were told that they will be given the last salary corresponding
to the two weeks of work which was not yet paid them;

10. Complainants then were barred from going inside the company
premises;

11. To her dismay, she was not paid anymore the last salary corresponding
to two weeks of their last work, their pro rated 13 th month pay, perfect attendance
bonuses, night shift differential pays and mid-shift differential pays;

12. Hence the instant complaint;

THE ISSUES

A. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.

B. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO
REINSTATEMENT WITH BACK WAGES AND OTHER MONEY CLAIMS;
C. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO ACTUAL,
MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, PLUS ATTORNEY’S FEES.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

13. Complainant no doubt is a regular employee since she has been

rendering services usually necessary or desirable to the respondent company.
(De Leon vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 70705, August 21, 1989);

2
 14. Complainant, being a regular employee, is entitled to a security of
tenure;

15. In PAL, vs. PALEA, 57 SCRA 489, the Supreme Court emphasized
that the right of the employer to freely select or discharge an employee is subject
to the regulation by the state, basically in the exercise of its paramount police
power;

16. Thus, labor laws were enacted to protect the rights of the labourer
without however diminishing the employer’s right to dismiss but instead regulates
the exercise thereof. The right to dismiss authorizes neither oppression nor self
destruction of the employer. The employer is bound therefore, to exercise caution
in terminating the services of his employees;

17. Thus, dismissal must be based on just causes or authorized causes. In

MERALCO vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 78763, July 12, 1989, the Supreme Court held:

“..Due process must be observed in dismissing an employee because it

affects not only his position but also his means of livelihood. Employers should
therefore, respect and protect the rights of their employees, which included the
right to labor..’;

18. In the case at bar, complainant was dismissed not on just cause or
authorized cause but on the whims and caprices of the respondents;

19. The events that took place on October 9, 2012 bare it all. Complainant,
along with her co-complainants in the case at bar, was whisked in an enclosed
room and was callously made to wait for several hours only to be told eventually
that she was DISMISSED from her work;

20. Adding insult to injury, she was then escorted out of company premises
in a humiliating manner without any justifiable reason at all;

21. According to the Labor Code of the Philippines, an employer who

intends to terminate an employee on just causes must served written notices to
the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination and giving him a
reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side;

22. A hearing or conference shall then be conducted during which the

employee concerned, with assistance of counsel if she so desires, must be given
an opportunity to respond to the charges, present his evidence or rebut the
evidence presented against him, and a written notice of termination must be
served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the
circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination. (Article
283, Labor Code of the Philippines);

23. But respondents never complied with any of the requirements/

elements enumerated by law. This is a violation of the right of the complainants to

3
a SECURITY OF TENURE and DUE PROCESS so that their dismissal from
service is illegal;

24. The Supreme Court has ruled that:

“While the court recognizes the employer’s prerogatives to instill discipline,

in his employees and to impose reasonable penalties, including dismissal, on
erring employees pursuant to company rules and regulations. (Soco vs.
Merchantile Corporation of Davao, 148 SCRA 256), it should be emphasized that
due process must be observed on effecting an employee’s dismissal because the
dismissal of an employee affects not only his position but also his means of
livelihood and his dependent’s sustenance.

Thus, strict adherence to the requirements set forth in the Labor Code, as
amended, is essential. (RCPI vs. NLRC, 221 SCRA 7820) (Emphasis supplies).”

25. Hence, complainant is entitled to be reinstated and be paid backwages

from the time their employment were terminated up to the time of their actual
reinstatements;

26. Since respondent company did not only violate the rights of the
complainant to security of tenure but was also illegally dismissed with impunity,
they also should be paid moral and exemplary damages;

27. Complainant should also be paid their monetary claims of salary for
two weeks, perfect attendance bonus, pro rated 13 th month pay, night shift
differential pay and mid shift differential pay;

28. Complainant also have a dispute with her pay in the amount of
P1,665.00 which was illegally deducted in her salary for alleged absences when in
truth she did not have any absences on that particular cut-off. She already called
the attention of the respondents and provided the evidence therefor but the same
was merely ignored and never resolved.

29. Lastly, complainant should be reimbursed of their legal expenses;

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed:

a. That respondents be declared to have illegally dismissed the

complainants;
b. That respondents be declared to be solidarily liable to pay the
complainants backwages, moral damages and exemplary damages;
c. That respondents be declared to be solidarily liable to pay the
complainants their latest salary corresponding to two weeks of work and pro
rated 13th month pay;
d. Further that respondents be declared to be solidarily liable to pay:

4
 -Perfect attendance bonus of P20, 000.00 (for 4 months)
-Night shift differential pay of P180x 20 (days) x 4 (mons) =P14,400.00
-Mid shift differential pay of P45x20(days) x 4 (mons) =P3,600.00
-Salary dispute in the amount of P1, 665.00

e. Lastly that complainant be paid her attorney’s fees corresponding to

10% of the monetary award/s.

Other just and equitable remedies are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, February 25, 2013.

ATTY. PEARLITO B. CAMPANILLA

Suite B, 2nd floor, Overland Park Building
No. 245 Banawe cor. Quezon Ave., Quezon City.
PTR No. 6308458 02-06-12 QC
IBP No. 888279 02-03-12 Pasig City
L.M. ROLL No. 010564
ROLL No. 37522
MCLE No. III - 0015235

Copy Furnished:

VXI INC ET.AL

3rd Floor Waltermart Edsa Muñoz Quezon City