Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
San Pablo, Laguna
ESTELA S. NARAG,
Complainant.
-versus- Case No. RO4-4!-MC-"#
$EENSB%RG MAR$ETING
COR&ORATION,
Respon'ent.
(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (
&OSITION &A&ER
COMPLA!A!", by herself to this #onorable Office, respectfully submits here

position papers and in support thereof further states$
% PAR"ES %
COMPLA!A!" ESTELA S. NARAG is a regular employee of respondent
company and maybe ser&ed 'ith summons and notices at
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()
RESPO!DE!"S $EANSB%RG MAR$ETING COR&. is a business entity
engaged in Mar*eting manufacturing of bottled 'ater and beers operating under the la's
of the Republic of the Philippines and maybe ser&ed 'ith summons and notices at
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((() MR. MIC)AEL TAN
is impleaded herein in his capacity as Chief Operating Officer and maybe ser&ed 'ith
summons and notices at the address of the respondent company)
*ACTS O* T)E CASE
Complainant 'as hired as ((((((((((((( by the respondent company on
(((((((((((((((( until she became the AR+Settlement Analyst of the same 'ith the
latest salary of ((((((((((((((( per month e,cluding other benefits before she 'as
illegally dismissed on (((((((((((((((((()
She 'as arbitrarily suspended by respondent company for si, -./ days 'ithout
first conducting an in&estigation and complainant e&en e,plained her signed in 'riting
but the same 'as not gi&en due course0
Photocopies of the memorandum of suspension and letter of e,planation are
hereto attached as Anne,es 1A 2 34, respecti&ely)
3efore ser&ing the suspension, she 'as gi&en se&eral memoranda and the same
'ere e,plained in 'riting)
Photocopies of the memoranda are hereto attached as anne,es 1
On March 5.,6778 the complainant 'as again suspended for 97 days and ser&ed
the same from March 5: to April 69, 6778)
A photocopy of the memo dated March 5., 6778 is hereto attached as anne, 1
On April 6;, 6778 complainant 'as again suspended for 97 'or*ing days
effecti&e May 8 to <une :, 6778 and again ser&ed by the complainant)
A photocopy of the memo dated April 6;, 6778 is hereto attached as anne, 1
As a result of her illegal dismissal, complainant suffered mental anguish,
sleepless nights and 'ounded feelings)
Aggrie&ed, complainant filed this instant case to the DOLE Regional Office and
'as later indorsed to the !ational Labor Relations, Calamba City)
CA%SES O* ACTION
ILLEGAL +ISMISSAL
MONE, CLAIMS
+AMAGES
ATTORNE,S *EES

+ISC%SSIONS-
"hat a person=s >ob is a property right 'ithin the ambit of constitution protection
has been long recogni?ed and accepted in la'0 hence, 'e are circumspect and &igilant
'hene&er a 'or*er comes to this Court complaining of illegal dismissal) n each such
case, 'e re@uire the employer to pro&e by substantial e&idence the facts and constituting
the ground for dismissal, and that termination effected 'ith strict obser&ance of both
procedural and substanti&e due process) -Pacific Maritime Ser&ices AS !icanor Ranas
B)R) !O) 555 .76, <uly 65, 5;;C/

n dismissal cases, the la' re@uires that the employer must furnish the employee
sought to be terminated from employment 'ith t'o -6/ 'ritten notices before the same
may legally effected) "he first is a 'ritten notice containing a statement of the cause -s/
for dismissal0 the second is a notice informing the employee of the employers decision to
terminate her+him stating the basis of dismissal) During the process leading to the second
notice, the employer must gi&e the employee ample opportunity to be 'ard and defend
himself, 'ith the assistance of counsel if he so desires) -!orma Mabe?a AS !LRC, et)al)
B)R) !O) 55:D7., April 5:, 5;;C/
n all termination cases, strict compliance by the employer 'ith the demands of
both procedural and substanti&e due process is a condition sine @ua non for the same to
be declared &alid) -Philippine Air Lines nc) AS !LRC, 6C; SCRA 88D/
Applying the la' and >urisprudential matri,, herein complainant 'as depri&ed of
due process and his dismissal 'as 'ithout >ust cause considering the attendant facts in the
instant case)

&ROCE+%RAL +%E &ROCESS
.IOLATE+ IN A**ECTING T)E
+ISMISSAL O* )EREIN COM&LAINANT
Ob&iously in the case at bar complainant 'as gi&en a notice of termination)
!either did the respondent informed formally herein complainant the cause -s/ of her
dismissal has gi&e her nor gi&e her ample opportunity to defend his side before affecting
the said dismissal) Eurthermore, no hearing or in&estigation 'as conducted by respondent
company to gi&e complainant ample opportunity to defend and rebut the e&idences
against her if there are)
"he notice re@uirement is not a mere technicality but a re@uirement of due
process to 'hich e&ery employee is entitled to insure that the employer=s prerogati&e to
dismiss or layFoff is not abused or e,ercised in an arbitrary manner) -Ginsi?e
Manufacturing Corporation, et) Al AS !LRC, et) Al) B)R) !O) 5578D6FD8, !o&ember 68,
5;;:, 69: SCRA 98;/)
ndubitably, herein respondents &iolated the procedural re@uirements of due
process of la', as such entitles complainant to full bac*'ages as enunciated in SE"A!
AS, RH3E! SERRA!O, B)R) !O) 55C78, <anuary 6C, 6777 ruling inter alia4
1I , , 'as denied notice and+or hearing is entitled to full bac*'ages from
the time that his employment 'as terminated up to the time the decision in his case
becomes final,4
ABSENCE O* /%ST CA%SE
"he follo'ing are the >ust causes for dismissal under the la', &i?$
AR") 6:6) "ermination by employerJJ)) An employer may terminate an
employment for any of the follo'ing causes0

a/ Serious Misconduct or 'illful Disobedience by the employee of the
la'ful orders of his employer or representati&e in connection of his
'or*0
b/ Bross and habitual !eglect by the employee of his duties0
c/ Eraud or 'illful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by
his employer or duly authori?ed representati&e0
d/ Commission of a Crime or offense by the employee against the person of
his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly
authori?ed representati&e0 and
e/ Other causes Analogous to the foregoing)
On the substanti&e aspect of due process, respondent company 'ould li*e to
ma*e it appear that complainant can be &alidly dismissed on charges le&eled against her
but the la' re@uires substantial e&idence on the part of the respondent company to pro&e
>ust cause for effecting the termination of herein complainant)
"he alleged infraction stated in the notice of termination does not state ho', 'hen,
'here and circumstances surrounding the alleged incident) "he offenses stated in the
notice of termination refers to the infraction 'hich herein complainant 'as already been
punished as sho'n by the memoranda of suspensions hereto attached as Anne,es
1((((((( 2 (((((((4
"hus, 'e cannot dismiss complainant on the basis of her past infractions 'hich he
'as not accorded due process or on the detail on ho', 'hen, 'here the allegations of
'rong doing 'ere committed) Ke should be a'are that$
1"he burden of proof to establish the &alidity of the dismissal of an employee lies
on employer and the latter=s failure to do so results in the finding that the dismissal is
unfounded)4 -Bunpo Ser&ices Corp) AS !LRC, 6.. SCRAA .DC/
t is settled that in termination cases the employer bears the burden of proof to
sho' that the dismissal is for >ust cause, the failure of 'hich 'ould mean that the
dismissal is not >ustified and the employee is entitled to reinstatement) Kithout doubt
there could be no &alid and >ust cause for terminating the ser&ices of herein complainant)
GRA.E AB%SE O*
MANAGEMENT
&REROGATI.E
Khile it is true that the company can e,ercise management prerogati&e in the
pursuit of its interest, ho'e&er, the e,ercise of management prerogati&e is not 'ithout
limitations) "he Court said in 3usiness day nformation Systems and Ser&ices, nc), et)
Al), AS !LRC, et) al), B)R) !o) 579DCD, 7D April 5;;9, 665 SCRA ;0
1, , ,, as management prerogati&es are not absolute
prerogati&es but are sub>ect to legal limits, collecti&e bargaining
agreements or general principles of fair play and >ustice)4

n the case at bar, complainant had clearly sho'n that respondent gra&ely abused
its management prerogati&e as the dismissal of herein complainant is &iolati&e of her
tenural security 'hich is guaranteed by the constitution, la' and e,isting >urisprudence)
n conclusion complainant=s alleged infraction cannot be considered as >ust cause
for dismissal or analogues circumstance under the la' and e,isting >urisprudence
because there e,ists no >ust for dismissal)
REINSTATEMENT AN+
A0AR+ O* BAC$0AGES
&RO&ER
n the case at bar, facts clearly sho', there 'as a &iolation of complainants security
of tenure) #er dismissal contra&enes both procedural and substanti&e due process
re@uirements of the la') "he Court en banc held in PO!EES "EI"HRL!B CORP)
and+or <HLA!O LM &s) !A"O!AL LA3OR RELA"O!S COMMSSO!,
PEO!EER "EI"HR!B KORGERS H!O! and LOHRDES A) DE <ESHS -B)R)
!o) 55:.D5, October 5., 5;;C)/ emphatically said$
1J,,,)
#enceforth, 'e rule that an a'ard or order for reinstatement is self
e,ecutory) After receipt of the decision or resolution ordering the employee=s
reinstatement, the employer has the right to choose 'hether to reFadmit the employee to
'or* under the same terms and conditions pre&ailing prior to his dismissal or to reinstate
the employee in the payroll) n either instance, the employer has to inform the employee
of his choice) "he notification is based on practical considerations for 'ithout notice, the
enployee has no 'ay of *no'ing of he has to report for 'or* or not) -Emphasis ours/)
MONE, CLAIMS
"he facts 'ould sho' that herein complainant 'as not paid of her salaries for the
period of (((((((((((((((((((((((( to (((((((((((((((((, 59
th
month pay for
6778, unused sic* and &acation lea&e) "hus respondent company should be responsible
for the payment of such benefits as prescribed by la')
BA+ *AIT) ON T)E
&ART O* RES&ON+ENT
ENTITLES COM&LAINANT
A0AR+ O* +AMAGES AN+
ATTORNE,S *EES.
"he fact that complainant 'as not afforded, due process to our mind ipso >ure,
places respondent in clear bad faith) 3esides, respondent=s perfunctory act of dismissing
herein complainant 'ould only sho' bad faith) "hus, entitling complainant moral as 'ell
as e,emplary damages)
Respondent should be penali?ed for its illegal action, thus should bear the cost of
litigation and la'yer=s fee)
K#EREEORE, premises considered it is respectfully prayed to this #onorable
Office to order the immediate reinstatement of complainant 'it full bac*'ages 'ho loss
of seniority rights) A'ard moral as 'ell as e,emplary damages and attorney=s fees in
fa&or of complainant and grant her money claims against the company)
Other >ust and e@uitable reliefs and li*e'ise prayed for)
Cabuyao, Laguna), Eebruary 57, 677D)
ESTELA S. NARAG
. E R I * I C A T I O N
, ESTELA NARAG, of legal age, under oath depose and states that$
am the complainant in the abo&eFentitled case)
"hat caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Position Paper0
"hat ha&e read the same and all the facts therein are true to the best of my o'n
*no'ledge and belief)
CERTI*ICATION
"his is to certify that *na&e not commenced any action or filed any claim
in&ol&ing the same issues in any Court, tribunal or @uasi >udicial agency and to the best
of my *no'ledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein, if there is such other
pending action or claim, or if should thereafter learn that a similar action or claim has
been filed or is pending, shall report the same 'ithin fi&e -D/ days to this #onorable8
Office)
ESTELA S. NARAG
Complainant+Affiant
SH3SCR3ED and SKOR! to before me this (((((( day of Eebruary 677D)
(((((((((((((((((
!otary Publ0ic
Copy Eurnished$
E1&LANATION
Copy of the foregoing pleading 'as sent to respondent through registered mail
due to distant factor)
ESTELA S. NARAG