REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

Regional Arbitration Branch No. III
City of San Fernando, Pampanga
JAKE BRYSON R. DANCEL,
Complainant,
NLRC Case No.
RAB III. 10- 23346- 15
VS.
IQOR PHILIPPINES, MS. JULIET S. GESLANI,
& ARLENE GANDEZA
Respondents.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
POSITIONPAPER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT
COMPLAINANT, by and through the undersigned counsel, unto
this Most Honorable Office, most respectfully submits this Position
Paper of the herein Complainant: to wit,

PREFATORY STATEMENT
When a person has no property, his job may possibly be his
only possession or means of livelihood. Therefore, he should
be protected against any arbitrary deprivation of his job1
THE CASE
On September 26, 2015, a Termination Notice was given to the
herein complainant. On October 20, 2015, considering the
termination of the herein complainant, he filed a case unto this
Honorable Office, specifying amongst others, Illegal Dismissal as
his primary cause of action. There was a preliminary conference
on November 13, 2015 but the same was cut short due to the
unwillingness of the defendants to settle the case amicably.
Hence, this case pending before your Honorable Court.

1 Page 381, Everyones Labor Code (2010) by C.A.Azucena

FACTS OF THE CASE

1 The herein respondent IQOR Philippines (hereinafter referred
to as respondent Company) is a domestic company engaged
in the business of Business Processing Outsourcing (BPO).
Whereas, the respondents JULIET S. GESLANI (hereinafter
referred to as Juliet) is the Human Resources Manager and
ARLENE GANDEZA (hereinafter referred to as Arlene) is the
Operations Manager of the Respondent Company;
2 On May 12, 2014 the herein complainant was employed 2 by
the above-mentioned respondent company. The complainant
started to work on the same day;
3 The nature of work of the complainant is to accept incoming
calls or make outgoing calls to customers. These two types of
calls are termed as inbound and outbound. The nature of the
calls can be in the form of telemarketing, sales, customer
service, technical support or billing. Each and every night the
complainant is to explain billing disputes, solve technical
concerns, update/make changes to customers accounts, or
make sales by convincing the customer to accept proposed
update. In this type of job, the employee needs to cope up with
irate callers, shifting schedules as well as a substantial amount
of work pressure. To have a thriving career as a call center
agent, one needs to be articulate and competent about
navigating through a number of software applications. Finally, a
healthy dose of motivation and knowing how to build rapport
with customers in each call would make a person one of the
best in the industry;
4 The complainant was doing well during in his stay in the
respondent company. In fact, the complainant received an
award3 for his hard work and dedication. The complainants
pay-slips4 show that his performance was ever improving;
5 The complainant was surprised after learning that he was
already the subject of discussion of the respondents;

2 Exhibit A
3 Exhibit B
4 Exhibits C to N

6 The complainant was unaware that his post5 in Facebook

irritated the respondents. Eventually, that led to the harassment
made by the respondent to the complainant;
7 Then after discussions with the respondents, the complainant
was given a memorandum for past infractions;
8 Instead of settling the matter in the grievance machinery of the
respondent company, the respondents had chosen to dismiss
the herein complainant. Worst, the dismissal of the
complainant was without any valid reason and without any due
process. Hence, this case.
ISSUES
1 Whether or not complainant was illegally dismissed?
2 Whether or not the complainant was given due process in
his dismissal?
3 Whether or not the respondent is liable for backwages,
separation pay and damages for illegally dismissing the
complainant?
ARGUMENTS
THE COMPLAINANT WAS
ILLEGALLY DISMISSED
No less than the labor code provides that the employer shall not
terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when
authorized by law.6 The law only gives just causes and authorized
causes for terminating employees. Other than this causes specified in
the Labor Code the employer cannot validly terminate the employee
from his employment. Otherwise, such termination would result to an
illegal dismissal.
The complainant was given a Termination Notice7 by the
respondents. The alleged grounds for termination as contained in the
said notice were not clear. It is better to discuss the grounds for
dismissal one by one.
5 Exhibits O to Q
6 Art. 279 of the Labor Code of the Philippines (As amended by Section 34, Republic Act
No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
7 Exhibit U

First, the company dismissed the complainant due to the willful

disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or
representative in connection with his work.8 As explained by the
Supreme Court for willful disobedience to be a valid cause for dismissal,
these two elements must concur: (1) the employees assailed conduct
must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and
perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been
reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to
the duties which he had been engaged to discharge. 9 (Emphasis
supplied) In here, the elements of willful disobedience were not present.
The memorandum received by the complainant shows that only four (4)
absences were made by the complainant. Twice on the month May and
twice on the month of July. While it is true that absences are not
desirable in a work place, it is also equally true that employees cannot
control their health. Specially, the instant case deals with a night worker.
The more important thing to consider is the fact that night workers have
abnormal working hours, and most of the job is to be done at night time
or from 10PM to 5AM. Due to this schedule, a night worker tends to be
immobilized by sickness and other health related matters. As explained
by the complainant in his reply memorandum, he was not able to go to
his work place because of flu. As a matter of fact, the complainant was
very much willing to furnish a copy of his medical certificate10 to the
supervisor Ms. Perlita Dulay, but the latter did not accept the same for
unknown reasons. Thus, in the instant case, the respondent company
failed to show that there was a wrongful and perverse disobedient
conduct and such conduct was made known to the complainant.
Notwithstanding, the 4 infractions of the complainant, the
respondents cannot use the same against him. It is very important to
note that the infractions happened on TWO (2) separate months. No
less than the law provides for leaves 11 which are considered to be a
right given to the employees. Considering also the nature of work of the
complainant, the respondent should be giving more leave credits to its
employees. The complainant doesnt know when will illness attacks him.
Illness is and always will be sudden and unexpected. It is totally illogical
for the company to request his employees to give notice before they get
sick. Thus, the NCNS indicated in the memorandum should not be given
any credit, nor be used as a cause for termination.

8ibid
9REALDA vs NEW AGE GRAPHICS, INC. & MIRASOL (G.R. No. 192190 April 25,
2012)
10 Exhibit T
11 Art. 95 of the Labor Code of the Philippines

Second, the company dismissed the complainant due to gross

and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties. Jurisprudence
provides that neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal, must be both
gross and habitual. Gross negligence connotes want of care in the
performance of ones duties. Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to
perform ones duties for a period of time, depending upon the
circumstances. A single or isolated act of negligence does not
constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee.12(Emphasis
supplied). In here, the complainant wasnt able to go to work because of
his illness that time. It is also very important to note that the infractions
were made on MAY and JULY ONLY. After the July 10, 2015, there was
never any infraction made by the complainant. In short, from the July 10
to September 19, 2015 (the date of the Show Cause Memorandum) or
even up to September 26, 2015 (the date of the Termination Notice)
there were no other infraction and/or absences/NCNS on the part of the
complainant. Thus, the respondent company failed to prove the
repeated failure of the complainant to perform his duties.
In view of the foregoing reasons, there was really no VALID
CAUSE for the company to terminate the complainant. The termination
of the complainant should be and really is considered ILLEGAL.
The termination was really employed to harass the complainant.
The termination was really because of the posts 13 made by the herein
respondent. Harassment is apparent when we consider the timeline of
the events that has transpired in this case. It is worthy to note the dates
of the said Posts in comparison to the dates of the Show Cause
Memorandum and the Termination Notice, as well as the dates of the
alleged NCNS/absences. The Posts were made sometime in
September 1514 other posts were made in September 16 and 17. 15 Two
(2) days after the said posts, there was a memorandum dated
September 1916, a memorandum requiring an explanation to the
infractions committed months before. There was an explanation letter
given by the complainant dated September 2117. However, Five (5)
days or September 26, 2015, after the explanation letter there was
already a Termination Notice given by the respondents. Thus, it is
apparent that the respondents only used the alleged NCNS/Absences to

12 St. Lukes Medical Center, Inc. and Kuan vs Notario(G.R. No. 152166 October 20,
2010)
13 Exhibits O; P and Q
14 Exhibit O-1
15 Exhibits P-1 & Q-1
16 Exhibit R-1
17 Exhibit S-1

get back on the posts of the complainant. Hence, the grounds used by
the respondents really are misplaced.
In addition, upon signing the Termination Notice, there was also a
Deed of Quitclaim18 signed by the complainant in order for him not to go
after the respondent employer. Both the termination notice and the said
quitclaim are contracts of adhesion. Jurisprudence provides that a
contract of adhesion is defined as one in which one of the parties
imposes a ready-made form of contract, which the other party may
accept or reject, but which the latter cannot modify. One party prepares
the stipulation in the contract, while the other party merely affixes his
signature or his "adhesion" thereto, giving no room for negotiation and
depriving the latter of the opportunity to bargain on equal footing. 19
Furthermore, deeds of release and quitclaim cannot bar employees
from demanding benefits to which they are legally entitled or from
contesting the legality of their dismissal. The acceptance of those
benefits would not amount to estoppel. Thus, this notices and deeds
issued by the respondent company do not and should never be used as
a defense for them not to comply with their obligations and
responsibilities for illegal dismissal.
THE COMPLAINANT WAS
DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT
TO DUE PROCESS
No less than our Constitution provides that no person should be
deprived of his property without due process of law.20 The employment
of the complainant is protected by due process, for the right to
employment does not only include his right to his position but most
importantly his right to receive his salary to sustain his life as well as his
family.
In order to uphold the validity of the complainants dismissal, the
respondent company must comply with both substantive and procedural
due process requirements. Substantive due process requires that the
dismissal must be pursuant to either a just or an authorized cause under
Articles 282, 283 or 284 of the Labor Code. Procedural due process, on
the other hand, mandates that the employer must observe the twin
requirements of notice and hearing before a dismissal can be effected.21

18 Exhibit V
19Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. v. Verchez, G.R. No. 164349, January
31, 2006, 481 SCRA 384, 401, citing Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Court
of Appeals, 325 Phil. 588, 597 (1996)
20 Sec1, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution
21 ALPS Transportation and Perez vs Rodriguez (G.R. No. 186732 June 13, 2013)

On the substantive due process, the above-discussions on the causes

of dismissal are enough to emphasize that the respondent company
failed to meet the substantive due process as required by the law.
On the procedural due process, the respondent company failed to
comply with the requirements provided for by law and jurisprudence. In
the present case, on September 19, 2015, there was a show cause
memorandum22 given to the complainant. On September 21, 2015, the
complainant filed his explanation letter23 to the said memorandum. Then
on September 26, 2015 or FIVE (5) days later, there was already a
Termination Notice made by the respondent company. It is very
apparent in the Termination Notice that there was no mention of the
explanation letter made by the complainant. The explanation of the
complainant was never discussed in the notice of termination. Worst, it
wasnt even mentioned that the respondents rejected the explanation of
the complainant. Thus, the memorandum and the notice of termination
were only made as formality. The memorandum and the notice of
termination were made just so the respondents can claim that there was
a compliance of due process. Such acts of the respondent company
should not be given any credence. In fact, considering all the details
cited in the memorandum and the termination notice, the intent to
dismiss is very apparent. Hence, the ample opportunity to be heard was
deprived from the complainant.
THE RESPONDENTS SHOULD
BE LIABLE FOR FULL BACKWAGES,
SEPARATION PAY AND MORAL
AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
Jurisprudence provides that an illegally dismissed employee is
entitled to two reliefs: backwages and reinstatement. The two reliefs
provided are separate and distinct. In instances where reinstatement is
no longer feasible because of strained relations between the employee
and the employer, separation pay is granted. In effect, an illegally
dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or
separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable, and backwages. 24
(Emphasis supplied) In here, it is very clear that the complainant was
illegally dismissed due to arguments above-discussed. Hence, the
complainant should be awarded backwages from the time of his
dismissal or September 26, 2015 (date of effectivity of his dismissal) up
to the present.
22 Exhibits R & R-1
23 Exhibit S & S-1
24 BANI RURAL BANK INC. ENOC THEATER I AND II and/or DE GUZMAN VS
DE GUZMAN, TAN and TAN (G.R. No.170904 November 13, 2013)

Furthermore, the following instances when the award of separation pay,

in lieu of reinstatement to an illegally dismissed employee, is proper: (a)
when reinstatement is no longer possible, in cases where the dismissed
employee s position is no longer available; (b) the continued relationship
between the employer and the employee is no longer viable due to
the strained relations between them; and (c) when the dismissed
employee opted not to be reinstated, or the payment of separation
benefits would be for the best interest of the parties involved.25
(Emphasis supplied). In the present case, it is obvious that the
respondents have the tendency to make a case out of anything just to
get rid of undesirable employees. Such fact was exploited in this
position paper. Thus, the complainant chooses separation pay instead
of reinstatement so as not to experience future harassment from the
respondents.
It has been ruled by the Supreme Court that award of moral and
exemplary damages for an illegally dismissed employee is proper where
the employee had been harassed and arbitrarily terminated by the
employer. Moral damages may be awarded to compensate one for
diverse injuries such as mental anguish, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, and social humiliation occasioned by the employers
unreasonable dismissal of the employee. The Court has consistently
accorded the working class a right to recover damages for unjust
dismissals tainted with bad faith; where the motive of the employer in
dismissing the employee is far from noble.26 As previously discussed,
the complainants dismissal was not easy. The said dismissal was
mainly because of the grief of the complainant due to NO LUNCH
BREAK posted in the social media. The respondents arbitrarily used its
power to dismiss against the complainant. From the time of the
complainants dismissal up to the moment, the complainant cannot
sleep at night thinking where he will get his income for the upcoming
months. The complainant was hurt due to the humiliation the company
brought upon him during his dismissal. The complainant was also forced
to procure the services of a counsel just so he could get what he really
deserves. In fact, the complainant was forced to go home in his
hometown just to get a counsel who can accommodate him without too
much to spend.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES
As Exhibit A- Electronic Employment Contract
25 Section 4(b), Rule I of the Rules Implementing Book VI of the Labor Code
26 SPI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and LEA VILLANUEVA vs VICTORIA K. MAPUA
(G.R. No. 191154 April 7, 2014)

Purpose: To prove the existing Employer-employee relationship

of the complainant and respondents.
As Exhibit B

- Certificate of Achievement as Top Agent

Purpose: To prove the improving performance

complainant inside the respondent company.
As Exhibit C

- Electronic Payslip September 30, 2015

As Exhibit D

- Electronic Payslip August 31, 2015

As Exhibit E

- Electronic Payslip July 31, 2015

As Exhibit F

- Electronic Payslip June 30, 2015

As Exhibit G

- Electronic Payslip May 31, 2015

As Exhibit H

- Electronic Payslip April 30, 2015

As Exhibit I

- Electronic Payslip March 31, 2015

As Exhibit J

- Electronic Payslip February 28, 2015

As Exhibit K

- Electronic Payslip January 31, 2015

As Exhibit L

- Electronic Payslip December 31, 2014

As Exhibit M

- Electronic Payslip November 30, 2014

As Exhibit N

- Electronic Payslip October 31, 2014

of

the

Common purpose: Exhibits C to N are being offered to prove

the computation of the backwages, separation pay, unpaid/unused
leave credits and all other monetary awards to be given to the
complainant. The said exhibits are also used to prove the competency
and improving performance of the complainant in the respondent
company.
As Exhibit O
complainant

- Screenshot of the post made by the

As Exhibit O-1 - The date of the post

As Exhibit P

- Screenshot of the chat box in the social media

As Exhibit P-1 - Date of the chat box

As Exhibit Q
media]

- Screenshot of the chat box in the social

As Exhibit Q-1 - Date of the Chat box

Common Purpose: Exhibits O to Q are being offered to prove
the alleged cause of the harassment of the respondents. Thus, this
illegal dismissal was made as a guised to remove the complainant from
the workplace.
Exhibits O-1;P-1 and Q-1 are being offered to prove the
timeline and sequence of events that transpired during the process of
the dismissal.
As Exhibits R

- Show Cause Memorandum

As Exhibits R-1- Date of the Show Cause Memorandum

As Exhibit S

- Letter Reply

As Exhibit S-1 - Date of the Letter Reply

As Exhibit T

- Medical Certificate

As Exhibit U

- Termination Notice

As Exhibit U-1 - Date of Termination Notice

As Exhibit V
- Release and Quitclaim
Common Purpose: Exhibits R to T are being offered to prove
the lack of due process in the termination proceeding. It is also offered
to prove the existence of bad faith on the part of the respondents.
All documentary evidences are generally further offered to prove
all other allegations and arguments in this position paper.
I also reserve my right to present additional documentary and
testimonial evidence in the course of the trial if the need arises.
.
CONCLUDING STATEMENT
The complainant is not asking much from the respondents.
However, the complainant must at least be given the amount due to
him, considering his contribution to the respondent company; his age;
his enthusiasm in the workplace; and his performance. Thus, the
complainant should be paid accordingly by the oppressive respondents.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, on bended knees, it is most respectfully prayed
unto this Honorable Office to give a judgment in favor of the
complainant and to pay the complainant the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Backwages in the amount of P 100, 887.00;

Separation pay in the amount of P 25, 221.75;
Moral Damages in the amount of P100, 000;
Exemplary Damages in the amount of P30, 000; and
Attorneys Fees in the amount of P 25, 610.87.

Such other relief's which are just and equitable under the
premises are equally prayed.
Respectfully Submitted.
Laoag City for San Fernando, Pampanga. December 30, 2015.