Labor

1
Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
Quezon City
JOLY GANO MAGAN, et al.

Complainants,
- versus- NLRC-NCR CASE NO. 05-05082-15

Labor Arbiter BEATRIZ T. DE GUZMAN
SHOSHIN, INC/ MARIOBELLA

MANPOWER SPECIALIST /
JEFFREY TIU AND
ALMA U. MASANGCAY
Respondents.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
REPLY OF RESPONDENTS
MARIOBELLA MANPOWER SPECIALISTS /
ALMA MASANGCAY TO COMPLAINANTS
POSITION PAPER
Respondents Mariobella Manpower Specialists/Alma Masangcay, by
the undersigned, most respectfully submit their Reply to complainants Position
Paper and in support thereof aver that:
Complainants claim for regularization with respondent Shoshin should be
denied in the absence of any employer-employee relationship that existed
between them.
The elements to determine the existence of employer-employee
relationship are the following: (1) selection and engagement of the employee;
(2) payment of wages; (3) power of dismissal; (4) employers power to control
2
the employee with respect to the result to be done and to the means and
methods by which the work is to be accomplished. (Lim vs. NLRC, 303 SCRA
432; Religious of the Virgin Mary vs. NLRC, 316 SCRA 14; Lambao vs. NLRC,
317 SCRA 430; Traders Rural Bank vs. NLRC, 321 SCRA 467)
None of the above elements is present in the case at bar.
Herein respondents would like to stress the facts that they actually hired
the complainants before they were assigned to the premises of respondent
Shoshin. Herein respondents pay their salaries and other benefits. Lastly,
Welmer Medina, Mariobellas Coordinator was assigned to the premises of
Shoshin whose primary function is to supervise the employees of Mariobella at
the premises of respondent Shoshin in the performance of their respective
duties and functions with proper coordination with the supervisor respondent
Shoshin.
To substantiate the foregoing argument, herein respondents present the
Affidavit of Welmer Medina and the same is hereto attached and marked as
ANNEXES 1 and 1-A.
Complainants claim that they continuously rendered work with
respondent Shoshin is not proof of being regular employees.
When the complainants were assigned at the premises of respondent
Shoshin, they were informed before hand that their assignment was for a
specific period.
Significantly, the above-named complainants are not regular employees
but workers under term employment status.

3
In the case of Philips Semi-Conductors (Phil.) Inc. vs. Fradriguela, G.R. No.
141717, April 14, 2011, the Supreme Court defined Term Employment, as
Follows:
Term employment. The Labor Code does not outlaw employment

contracts on fixed terms or for specific period. The decisive
determinant in the term employment should not be the activity
that the employee is called upon to perform but the day certain
agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and termination
of their employment relationship. Term Employment is valid where:
(1) fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily
agreed upon by the parties without any force, duress, or improper
pressure being bought to bear upon the employee and absent any
other circumstances vitiating consent; or (2) It satisfactorily
appears that the employer and the employee dealt with each other
on more or less equal term with no moral dominance exercised by
the former or the latter.
As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Palmores vs.
NLRC, 277 SCRA 439, it was held that despite the fact that the complainants
have been working with the respondent for a number of years but under
different project employment contracts will not alter their status as project or
term employees regardless of the number of projects in which she has worked.
It was likewise ruled in the case of Villa vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 105, that length
of service is not the controlling determinant of the employment nature of a
project employee.
Pursuant to the above-quoted provision of the Labor Code and
jurisprudence, of three (3) kinds of employees cited above, it appears that the
complainants belong to the category of term of employees.

4
On the contrary, complainants employment and assignment with
respondent Shoshin were not continuous as evidenced by the copies of their
KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANG PAMAMASUKAN.
For instance, the case of Vergil M. Alocilla, he was issued his
employment contract and was assigned at the premises of respondent
Shoshin on May 6, 2011 to October 11, 2011; May 9, 2012 up to October 9,
2012; May 8, 2013 to October 8, 2013; August 20, 2014 to January 20, 2015;
February 4, 2015 to March 17, 2015
The copies of his KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANAG
PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 2 to 2-D,
while the confirmation of the said KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANG
PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXEDS 2-E to
2-I.
Complainant Alvin Lopez Andrade was hired by respondent Mariobella
and was assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on February 4, 2011
up to July 6, 2011; then on January 11, 2012 to June 11, 2012; January 16,
2013 to June 16, 2013; August 16, 2014 to March 17, 2015.
The copies of his KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANG
PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 3 to 3-
C, while the confirmation of the said KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANG
PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 3-D to 3-
G
5
Complainant Erlindo Denoy Barcelona was hired by respondent
Mariobella and was assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on May
11, 2009 to October 11, 2009, then on May 27, 2010 to October 27, 2010; April
29, 2011 to September 29, 2011; January 9, 2012 to June 9, 2012; January 8,
2014 to June 8, 2014; November 9, 2014 to April 9, 2015.
E, while the confirmation of the said KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANG
PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 4-F to 4-
K.
Complainant Benjie C. Batulan was hired by respondent Mariobella and
was assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on May 25, 2011 to
October 25, 2011, then on April 11, 2012 to September 11, 2012; April 3, 2013
to September 3, 2013; October 6, 2014 to March 6, 2015.
c, while the confirmation of the said KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANG
PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 5-D to 5-
G.
Complainant Elvy M. Cuendo was hired by respondent Mariobella and
was assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on January 4, 2012 to
June 4, 2012 then October 23, 2013 to March 23, 2014; June 3, 2014 to April
5, 2015
6
B, while the confirmation of the said KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANG
PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 6-C to 6-
E.
Complainant Freddie I. Del Valle was hired by respondent Mariobella and
was assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on May 2, 2011 to
October 5, 2011, then on January 2, 2012 to June 2, 2012; April 18, 2013 to
September 18, 2013; February 13, 2014 to July 13, 2014; November 19, 2014
to April 19, 2015.
D, while the confirmation of the said KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANG
PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 7-E to 7-
I.
Complainant Rogelio A. Ecleo was hired by respondent Mariobella and
was assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on January 13, 2011 to
June 13, 2011, then on December 13, 2011 to May 13, 2012; January 9, 2013
to June 9, 2013; January 8, 2014 to June 8, 2014; October 22, 2014 to March
24, 2015.

7
PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 8-E to 8-
I.
Complainant Joe M. Esto was hired by respondent Mariobella and was
assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on June 10, 2010 to
November 10, 2010, then on April 8, 2011 to September 8, 2011; February 10,
2012 to July 10, 2012; January 12, 2013 to May 12, 2013; January 10, 2014 to
June 10, 2014; February 7, 2015 to July 7, 2015.
PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 9-F to 9-
K.
Complainant Felix B. Gaytana, Jr. was hired by respondent Mariobella
and was assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on May 2, 2011 to
October 2, 2011, January 2, 2012 to June 2, 2012; October 17, 2012 to March
17, 2013; September 24, 2013 to February 4, 2014; July 17, 2014 to
December 17, 2014; March 4, 2015 to August 5, 2015
PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 10-F to
10-K.
8
Complainant Gualin C. Ignacio was hired by respondent Mariobella and
was assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on December 13, 2010
to May 17, 2011, then on November 3, 2012 to April 3, 2013; October 17, 2013
to March 18, 2014; January 22, 2014 to June 24, 2014; November 3, 2014 to
April 3, 2015.
PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 11-E to
11-I.
Complainant John F. Maestre was hired by respondent Mariobella and
was assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on April 28, 2011 to
September 28, 2011; then on April 12, 2012 to September 12, 2012; February
17, 2013 to July 17, 2013; November 23, 2013 to May 23, 2014; January 28,
2015 to June 28, 2015.
12-I
Complainant Edwin Marzan was hired by respondent Mariobella and was
assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on January 14, 2010 to June
16, 2010, then on January 13, 2011 to June 15, 2011; January 11, 2012 to
9
June 11, 2012; February 27, 2013 to July 27, 2013; November 19, 2014 to
May 17, 2015.
13-I
Complainant Jolly Magan was hired by respondent Mariobella and was
assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on January 25, to June 25,
2007; December 20, 2007 to May 21, 2008; November 8, 2008 to April 11,
2009; November 19, 2009 to April 21, 2010; November 4, 2010 to April 5,
2011; October 27, 2011 to March 27, 2012; October 3, 2012 to March 3, 2013;
September 18, 2013 to February 18, 2014; September 25, 2014 to February
24, 2015.
h, while the confirmation of the said KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANG
PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 14-i to
14-Q.
Complainant Henriel F. Payas was hired by respondent Mariobella and
was assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on November 7, 2008 to
April 7, 2009, then on November 27, 2010 to April 27, 2011; March 14, 2012 to
10
August 14, 2012; February 27, 2013 to July 27, 2013; April 29, 2014 to
September 29, 2014; November 12, 2014 to April 12, 2015.
PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 15-F to
15-K.
Complainant Mitz Ian J. Peralta was hired by respondent Mariobella and
was assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on July 22, 2011 to
December 22, 2011, then on January 16, 2013 to July 16, 2013; June 3, 2014
to April 3, 2015.
B, while the confirmation of the said KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANG
PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 16-C to
16-E.
Complainant Reynaldo P. Quilanan was hired by respondent Mariobella
and was assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on January 30, 2011
to June 30, 2011, then on January 18, 2012 to June 18, 2012; March 15, 2013
to August 15, 2013; January 3, 2014 to June 10, 2014; January 22, 2015 to
June 21, 2015.

11
17-I.
Complainant Gelly Esparas Rejuso was hired by respondent Mariobella
and was assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on January 8, 2008
to June 10, 2008; then on April 21, 2009 to September 21, 2009; March 23,
2010 to August 23,2010; January 17, 2011 to June 17, 2011, January 6, 2012
to June 6, 2012; January 10, 2013 to June 10, 2013; December 11, 2013 to
May 11, 2014; October 2, 2014 to March 17, 2015.
G, while the confirmation of the said KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANG
PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 18-H to
17-O.
Complainant Eduardo Layug Reyrata was hired by respondent Mariobella
and was assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on July 23, 2011 to
December 23, 2011; June 6, 2012 to November 6, 2012; April 10, 2013 to
September 10, 2013; January 8, 2014 to June 8, 2014; October 22, 2014 to
March 28, 2015.

12
19-I.
Complainant Robin M. Sabusab was hired by respondent Mariobella and
was assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on March 11, 2011 to
August 11, 2011; March 14, 2012 to August 14, 2012; January 17, 2013 to
June 17, 2013; December 8, 2013 to May 8, 2014; December 19, 2014 to April
19, 2015.
20-I.
Complainant Ramon E. Silvera, Jr. was hired by respondent Mariobella
and was assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on May 18, 2011 to
October 18, 2011; May 23, 2012 to August 23, 2012; January 8, 2013 to June
8, 2013; October 23, 2013 to March 23, 2014; October 28, 2014 to March 28,
2015.
21-I.
13
Let it be stressed that the complainants employments were not
continuous because as can be perused from the copies of their employment
contracts, there were interruptions on their employment with respondent
Mariobella and their assignment at the premises of respondent Shoshin.
As to the issue of illegal dismissal, complainants claim that they were
illegally dismissed because of respondents alleged blatant disregard and
deliberate violation of both substantive and procedural due process.
Respondents vehemently deny the same because there was no illegal
dismissal that actually transpired.
Moreover, contrary to the complainants allegation that they were illegally
dismissed because respondents failed to allegedly observe the twin
requirements of due process, the truth of the matter is that on March 21, 2015,
a notice was sent to them individually where they were directed to report to
respondent Mariobella.
The copies of the said notices which were individually sent to the
complainants via LBC Express on March 22, 2015 are hereto attached and
marked as ANNEXES 22, 22-A to 22-S, Inclusive.
Complainants actually showed up at the office of respondent Mariobella
on March 28, 2015. However, instead of reporting to their respective job
assignments, they opted to tender their voluntarily resignation
The copies of their resignation letters are hereto attached and marked as
ANNEXES 23, 23-A to 23-S, Inclusive.

14
After complainants have tendered their voluntarily resignation, they
secured their respective clearances so that whatever benefits still legally due
can be released to them.
The copies of complainants clearances are hereto attached and marked
as ANNEXES 24, 24-A to 24-S, Inclusive.
After the complainants had submitted their respective clearances,
respondent Mariobella immediately prepared the amounts legally due to them
wherein they were required to sign their respective quitclaims and releases
indicating the amount they actually received from the respondents.
The copies of the complainants respective quitclaims and releases are
hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 25, 25-A to 25-S, inclusive.
To further substantiate that complainants actually received the amount
indicated in their respective quitclaims and released, they were also requested
to sign copies of Cash Vouchers, as follows:

15
NAMES AMOUNT RECEIVED

1). Vergil M. Aloccilla P 16, 275.00
2.) Alvin L. Andrade P 16, 275.00
3.) Erlindo D. Barcelona P 33,075.00
4.) Benjie C. Bentulan P 18,900.00
5.) Elvy M. Cuenco P 18, 375.00
6.) Freddie I. Del Valle P 16, 275.00
7.) Rogelio A. Ecleo P 22, 050.00
8.) Joe M. Esto P 25,725.00
9.) Felix Gaytana, Jr. P 16, 275.00
10.) Gualin A. Ignacio P 27, 300.00
11.) John F. Maestre P 16, 327.00
12.) Edwin Marzan P 27, 300.00
13 ) Jolly Magan P 37, 327.00
14.) Henrigel Payas P 33, 600.00
15.) Mitz Ian Peralta P 18, 375.00
16.) Ronald Quilanan P 20, 475.00
17.) Gelly Rejuso P 37,800.00
18.) Eduardo Reyrata P 20,475.00
19.) Robin Sabusag P 21, 525.00
20.) Ramon Silvera P 21,000.00
The copies of the said Cash Vouchers indicating the total amount actually
received by the complainants are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES
26 , 26-A to 26-S.
To further prove that the amounts indicated in the Quitclaims and
Releases as well as in the Cash Vouchers, respondent Mariobella presents the
Affidavit of Mark Ronaldfred Param who prepared the same and released the
amounts indicated therein to the complainants.
The Affidavit of Mark RonaldFred Param is hereto attached and marked
as ANNEXES 27 and 27-A.
The non-observance of the twin requirements is no longer applicable in
the instant case because of the voluntary resignation of the complainants.

16
Moreover, the copies of the pieces of evidence which respondent Mariobella
has now presented totally negate illegal dismissal. How can an employee be
dismissed when he already tendered voluntary resignation?
Voluntary resignation is defined as the act of an employee, who finds
himself in a situation in which he believes that personal reasons cannot be
sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service; thus, he has no other choice
but to dissociate himself from his employment (Alfaro vs. CA, G.R. No.
140812, August 28, 2001, 363 SCRA 799, 808 citing Philippine Wireless, Inc.
(Pocketbell) vs. NLRC, 310 SCRA 653 (1999); Valdez vs. NLRC, 286 SCRA
87 (1998); and Habana vs. NLRC, 298 SCRA 537)
An employee voluntarily resigns when he finds himself in a situation
where he believes that the personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of
exigency of the service; thus, he has no other choice but to disassociate
himself from his employment. (Athena International Manpower Services, Inc
vs. Nonito Villanos, G.R. NO. 151303, April 15, 2005.
Since respondents vehemently deny having illegally dismissed the
complainants, the burden now of proving the same lies on the latter.
In Gallego vs. Bayer Philippines, G.R. No. 179807, 31 July 2009, the
court ruled that while in cases of illegal dismissal, the employer bears the
burden of proving that the dismissal is for a valid or authorized cause, the
employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal.
In the case of Padilla Machine Shop et al. Vs. Rufino Janilgas, G.R. No.
175960, Feb. 19, 2009, to wit:

17
The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it,
thus, petitioners were burdened to prove their allegations that the
respondents dismissed them from their employment. It must be
stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive
and convincing. The rule that the employer bears the burden of
proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no application here because
the respondents deny having dismissed the petitioners.
In Distileria La Fortuna, Inc.vs. NLRC, CA-G, R. SP NO. 61379, 25
January 2001, the Court of Appeals stated:
There is no question that the burden of proving that the termination

was for valid cause has always rested with the employer. However,
it does not necessarily follow that the burden of proving that there
was actually a dismissal also rests with the employer. It is most
logical to expect that it is the employee, being the offended party,
who would prove the circumstances of her separation. Only then will
the employer has to prove if said separation was legal and justified.
It is also clear from the record that the complainants has never been
served a written notice of dismissal or barred from entering the premises of the
respondents. There is no evidence to this effect. When an employee was not
notified that he had been dismissed from employment x x x there is no illegal
dismissal (Chong Guan Trading vs. NLRC 172 SCRA 834)
In the case at bar, there was no overt act of dismissal by the employer.
Absent any showing of an overt act or positive act proving that the complainant
had been dismissed, the claim of illegal dismissal cannot be sustained.
(Security and Credit Investigation, Inc. et. al. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. NO.
114316, 26 January 2001).
As to the claim that complainants are regular employees of respondent
Shoshin, the same should be denied for lack of legal and factual bases.
18
Complainants basis of their claims that they are regular employees of
Respondent Shoshin is because the supervisors and managers of Shoshin
can dictate the work/Job orders given to them to be done. Only the supervisors
and managers of Shoshin can direct and impose upon them on their
attendance, their functions, work performances and determine/control the
result of the tasks/works to be done and accomplished as well as the means
and methods of achieving/performing the tasks.
The said allegations of complainants appear to be mere presumptions
just to make this Honorable Office believe that they were under the direct
supervision of the supervisor of Respondent Shoshin. However, they failed to
mention the fact, just to mislead this Honorable Office, that Wilmer Medina
was assigned by Respondent Mariobella at the premises of Respondent
Shoshin to supervise them in the performance of their duties and functions
who coordinates with the supervisor of Respondent Shoshin. This alone will
prove that the complainant were not under the direct control and supervision of
the supervisors and managers of Respondent Shoshin.
Complainants allegation that their permission for leaves and overtime
works and their co-workers are being determined, set and controlled by the
respondent Shoshin, its supervisor and manager, should not be given any
weight at all for their failure to substantiate the same. There was no showing
that complainants applied for a leave of absence that was allowed/permitted
by respondent Shoshin. There was also no showing that they actually
rendered overtime work that was set and controlled by respondent Shoshin.
19
It is fundamental under the ordinary rules of evidence that the party-
litigant who alleges the existence of a factor or thing necessary to establish his
claim has the burden of proving the same by the amount of evidence required
by law, which, in labor proceedings, is substantial evidence. This is defined as
such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. (Ang Tibay vs. CIR, 69, Phil. 635). Thus, it is a rule in labor cases
that the party-claimant has the burden of proving his money claims. (Jimenez,
et. Al. vs. NLRC, et. al., 256 SCRA 84, 1996)
Complainants alleged that during the entire period of their assignment
with respondent Shoshin, only they can see are the latters supervisors and
manager who manage, supervise, control, among others, the policies,
methods and the systems of their daily works.
In their Position Paper, respondent Shoshin claims that they have around
fifty (50) regular employees. When the supervisors of respondent Shoshin
were in the act of supervising and controlling its workers who were in the
working in the same area together with the complainants, the latter could have
misunderstood and misinterpreted that these supervisors were also
supervising them when in fact, a supervisor of Respondent Mariobella was
actually assigned at Shoshin to supervise them separately from that of the
employees of Shoshin.
There was also no showing on how the complainants were disciplines on
the policies, procedures, among others, by the supervisors and managers of
respondent Shoshin.
20
To further negate complainants allegation that they are regular
employees of respondent Shoshin, respondent Mariobella submits the
computer print-out of complainants employment history as reported with the
Social Security System showing that it was Mariobella that reported them as
members with the Social Security System being its employees.
The copies of the said computer print-out of complainants employment
history as reported with the social security system are hereto attached and
marked as ANNEXES 28, 28-A to 28-S, inclusive.
The letter sent by the complainants to the respondent Shoshin dated April
6, 2015 demanding for their reinstatement should not be given any weight at
all because prior to the said date, they already voluntarily resigned from their
employment. Apparently, the sending of the said letter was just complainants
mere afterthought.
As regards the complainants money claims, the same should also be
denied.
When complainants tendered their voluntary resignation, they were paid
of what was actually due to them as evidenced by the copies of Quitclaim and
Release and the Cash Vouchers. Hence, the copies of the alleged pay slips
presented by the complainants as annexes to their Position Paper should not
be given any probative value at all. The same do not indicate the name of the
company that actually issued and who prepared the same.

21
Since it is the position of respondent Mariobella that complainants had
already been paid of what was actually due to them, it is not incumbent upon
the complainants to prove their claims.
It is fundamental under the ordinary rule of evidence that the party-litigant
who alleges the existence of a factor or thing necessary to establish his claim
has the burden of proving the same by the amount of evidence required by
law, which, in labor proceedings, is substantial evidence. This is defined as
such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. (Ang Tibay vs. CIR, 69 Phil. 635). Thus, it is a rule in labor cases
that the party-claimant has the burden of proving his money claims. (Jimenez,
et. al. vs. NLRC, et. al., 256 SCRA 84, 1996)
As declared by the Supreme Court in Cagampan vs. NLRC 195 SCRA
533 (1991), the employee must prove his claims such as overtime pay before
award thereon can be made against the employer. In All Oceans Marittime
Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC, it was ruled by the Supreme Court that the money
claim are to be substantiated by evidence on the part of the claimant-
employee before they may be awarded. In Aklan Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(AKELCO) vs. NLRC, et. al., G.R. NO 1211439, January 25, 2000, the
Supreme Court ruled in this wise: It was incumbent upon private respondents
(employees) to prove that they indeed rendered services for petitioner, which
they failed to do so. It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove is
the affirmative allegations. Since the burden of evidence lies with the party
who assert the affirmative allegation, the plaintiff or complainant has to prove
22
his affirmative allegations in the complainant and the defendant or the
respondent has to prove the affirmative allegation in his affirmative defences
and counterclaim..
The above pronouncements are likewise echoed in other relevant
decisions such as in Romeo Lagatic vs. NLRC, et. al., G.R. No. 121004,
January 28, 1998, Stol-Nielsen Marine Services (Phils)., Inc. vs. NLRC, et. al.,
G.R. No. 109156, July 11, 1996 and Cristonico Legahi vs, NLRC, et al., G.R
No. 122240, November 19, 1999.
Verily, the burden of proving that there was non-payment, if any, of
monetary benefits is incumbent upon the complainants.
As regards complainants allegations that they were required to sign
blank documents for the purpose of tricking and confusing them, the same has
no basis at all since complainants failed to fully substantiate the same. In fact,
the samples of clearance which complainants had presented as Annexes Y-2
and Y-3 of their Position Paper are not actually blank documents. In fact, the
same show that the blank portions were actually filled-up in ball pen which
indicates that when the same were executed by the complainants after the
termination of their employment contracts and not before the start of their
employment.
On the allegations that individual respondents Jeffrey Tiu and Alma
Masangcay should be held solidarily liable in the case at bar, the same should
be denied. Complainants failed to establish if the said respondents were
remiss in paying what was actually due to them. It was not also proven by the
23
complainants that the said individual respondents connived with each other in
allegedly dismissing them.
The claim for moral and exemplary damages should be denied.
Moral damages are recoverable only where the dismissal of the
employee was attended by bad faith or constituted an act oppressive to labor
or was done in manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.
Exemplary damages may be awarded only if the dismissal was effected in
wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. (Garcia vs. NLRC, 243 SCRA 632)
The Honorable Supreme Court in Dai-Ichi Electronic Manufacturing Corp.
vs. Villarama, Jr., 238 SCRA 267 (1994) categorically held that for damages as
a cause of action to fall within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Labor Arbiter it
must relate to a dispute arising from an employer-employee relationship, to
wit:
Jurisprudence has evolved the rule that claims for damages

under paragaraph 4 of Artcile 217, to be cognizable by the Labor
Arbiter, must have a reasonable causal connection with any of the
claims provided for in that article. Only if there is such a connection
with the other claims can the claim for damages be considered with as
arising from employer-employee relationship.
Anent the complainants claim for attorneys fees, suffice it to say that
such fees are recoverable only upon showing that the respondents acted in
bad faith in effecting the dismissal of the complainants. (Pizza Hut/Progressive
Dev. Corp. vs. NLRC, 252 SCRA 531)
Attorneys fee may be awarded only when the employee is illegally
dismissed in bad faith and is compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect
his rights by reason of the unjustified acts of his employer. (Pepsi Cola
24
Products Phils., Inc., et . al. Vs Emmanuel vs. Santos, G.R. No. 165969, April
14, 2008)
In the case at bar, the complainants must have to prove first that the
respondents acted in bad faith why their employment was severed.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Office that judgment be rendered dismissing the above-entitled
case for lack of merit.
Valenzuela City, for Quezon City, August 11, 2015
ALMA U. MASANGCAY
In her capacity as authorized representative of
Mariobella Manpower Specialist and also
One of the respondents
Copy furnished:
Atty. Mae Loquias Bentulan

Bentulan Law Offices
Counsel for Complainants
Suite 208 Commercial Center Bldg.
1091 N. Lopez St., Ermita
Manila
Atty. Ryan M. Celino

Counsel for Respondents Shoshin, Inc. And
Jeffrey Tiu
Suite 205 Delta Building
West Ave., Cor. Quezon Avenue
Quezon City

Labor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Republic of the Philippines

JOLY GANO MAGAN, et al.

- versus- NLRC-NCR CASE NO. 05-05082-15

SHOSHIN, INC/ MARIOBELLA

Respondents Mariobella Manpower Specialists/Alma Masangcay, by

the undersigned, most respectfully submit their Reply to complainants Position

Paper and in support thereof aver that:

Complainants claim for regularization with respondent Shoshin should be

denied in the absence of any employer-employee relationship that existed

The elements to determine the existence of employer-employee

None of the above elements is present in the case at bar.

the complainants before they were assigned to the premises of respondent

Welmer Medina, Mariobellas Coordinator was assigned to the premises of

Shoshin whose primary function is to supervise the employees of Mariobella at

the premises of respondent Shoshin in the performance of their respective

To substantiate the foregoing argument, herein respondents present the

ANNEXES 1 and 1-A.

Complainants claim that they continuously rendered work with

respondent Shoshin is not proof of being regular employees.

When the complainants were assigned at the premises of respondent

Significantly, the above-named complainants are not regular employees

but workers under term employment status.

Term employment. The Labor Code does not outlaw employment

As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Palmores vs.

of service is not the controlling determinant of the employment nature of a

Pursuant to the above-quoted provision of the Labor Code and

complainants belong to the category of term of employees.

On the contrary, complainants employment and assignment with

respondent Shoshin were not continuous as evidenced by the copies of their

KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANG PAMAMASUKAN.

For instance, the case of Vergil M. Alocilla, he was issued his

employment contract and was assigned at the premises of respondent

Shoshin on May 6, 2011 to October 11, 2011; May 9, 2012 up to October 9,

February 4, 2015 to March 17, 2015

The copies of his KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANAG

PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 2 to 2-D,

while the confirmation of the said KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANG

PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXEDS 2-E to

Complainant Alvin Lopez Andrade was hired by respondent Mariobella

and was assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on February 4, 2011

The copies of his KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANG

PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 3 to 3-

C, while the confirmation of the said KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANG

PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 3-D to 3-

Complainant Erlindo Denoy Barcelona was hired by respondent

Mariobella and was assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on May

2014 to June 8, 2014; November 9, 2014 to April 9, 2015.

The copies of his KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANG

PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 4 to 4-

E, while the confirmation of the said KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANG

PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 4-F to 4-

Complainant Benjie C. Batulan was hired by respondent Mariobella and

was assigned at the premises of respondent Shoshin on May 25, 2011 to

to September 3, 2013; October 6, 2014 to March 6, 2015.

The copies of his KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANG

PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 5 to 5-

c, while the confirmation of the said KASUNDUAN SA PANSAMANTALANG

PAMAMASUKAN are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES 5-D to 5-