REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
BACOOR CITY

Lyndon G Santos
Complainant,
IV-27-INV-19G-0642
versus For: Art. 112 and 113 of the Labor Code

Brgy. Chairman Ferdinand Garduque

Brgy. Treasurer Myla Liwanag
Mrs. Susan Catapia
Respondents,

JOINT COUNTER AFFIDAVIT

We, Ferdinand Garduque, of legal age, Filipino, Brgy. Chairman of Brgy. Salinas
1 Bacoor City, Cavite, Myla Liwanag, of legal age, Filipino, Brgy. Treasurer of Brgy.
Salinas 1 Bacoor City, Cavite and Mrs. Susan Catapia, of legal age, Filipino and a
resident of Brgy. Salinas 1 Bacoor City, Cavite after having been sworn to in
accordance with law hereby depose and state that:

1. Before proceeding any further, the Respondents hereby states that the
instant complaint is a perjurious, felonious, malicious, baseless, unfounded
and unjust FABRICATION by the Complainant, Lyndon G Santos intended:
a. To defeat the claim of the Respondent Mrs. Susan Catapia against the
Complainant for his validly contracted indebtedness;
b. To harass the Respondents and to find leverage to the complaint filed
against the Complainant.
2. The Respondents categorically states that:
a. We did not illegally deduct the salary of the Complainant;
 b. The act of the Complainant of initiating the instant case against the
Respondents, without any legal and factual basis, has caused mental
anguish, extreme anxieties, sleepless nights, and besmirched reputation
on the part of the Respondents and their family;
c. The Respondents shall soonest file a counter-charge for PERJURY against
the Complainant to serve as an example to society and in the interest of
justice.
3. The true facts of the case are enumerated and discussed below in
this wise.
4. The Complainant Lyndon G Santos is indebted to Respondent Mrs.
Catapia as of November 23, 2018 the amount of One Hundred Eighty
Three Thousand Two Hundred Forty Pesos (Php183,240.00) as
evidenced by the admission of the Complainant contained in his
Complaint Affidavit attached herewith and marked as annex “1”.
5. The Complainant and Respondent Mrs. Susan Catapia entered into
an agreement wherein the Complainant authorized the Respondent
to deduct from his salary certain amount to be applied to his
indebtedness as evidenced by the agreement herein marked as
annexed “2”.
6. Respondent Mrs. Catapia presented the agreement to Respondent
Brgy. Chairman Ferdinand Garduque.
7. Respondent Mrs. Susan Catapia told Respondent Brgy. Chairman
Ferdinand Garduque that the Complainant has authorized her
through a written agreement to get his salary.
8. Every pay day, Respondent Myla Liwanag, Brgy. Treasurer would
give the salary of the Complainant to Respondent Mrs. Catapia as
per the agreement.
9. On December 2018 Complainant changed his mind and reneged on
his promise to pay his indebtedness to Respondent Mrs. Catapia in
violation of the agreement they entered into.

Article 112 and 113 of the Labor Code cited by the complainant has no
application in the instant case. The relevant provision of the Labor Code
are as follows:
COVERAGE

a. Employees in all establishments whether operated for profit or not, are

covered by the Labor Standards.
b. Government employees, etc are outside the coverage of Labor
Standards.

In the case of Gaa vs. CA, GR No. L-44169 (1998), the Supreme Court
distinguished between salary and wages. According to the Supreme Court, wages
applies to compensation for manual labor, whether skilled or unskilled, while
salary denotes a compensation for a higher degree of employment.

Under Art. 1708 of the New Civil Code, salary can be garnished and applied
for a validly contracted debt.

The parties in the instant case are neither employer nor employee of each
other. Thus, the Labor Code provision cited by the Complainant finds no
application here. The Complainant is also mistaken considering that the subject of
instant case is a salary and not wages and therefore can be garnished and is
outside the Labor Code provision.

Granting for the sake of argument that the Labor Code provision has
application in the instant case, still the claim of the Complainant cannot stand
considering that he authorized Respondent Mrs. Susan Catapia to get his salary at
Brgy. Salinas 1.

Furthermore, if the Complainant strongly believed that Art. 112 and 113 of
the Labor Code has been violated by the Respondents, he should have filed his
complaint in the Labor Arbiter and not in the City Prosecutor of Bacoor City,
Cavite considering that the latter has no jurisdiction over labor cases.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the instant

complaint be dismissed for utter lack of merit.
 Further, the Respondents respectfully pray for such and other reliefs as
may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.

Bacoor City, Cavite.

Brgy. Chairman Ferdinand Garduque Myla Liwanag

Respondent Respondent

Mrs. Susan Catapia

Respondent

Subscribe and sworn to before me this day of August 2019 in the City of
Bacoor, Cavite.

Assistant City Prosecutor