July 27, 2016

ATTY. COUNSELO B. TARAMPI-TACCAD

Counsel for Maria Manaligod
2nd floor LSP Building, Barangay Osmea
Ilagan City, Isabela
Attention: Ms. Maria Manaligod
Subject: Reply to Demand Letter dated July 14, 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------------Madame:
We write in behalf of our clients, Mr. Anthony Seymour and Compaa De Filipinas (hereafter
referred as CDF), regarding your demand letter dated July 14, 2016 which was received by our
client on July 21, 2016.
A careful perusal of your demand letter leads us to believe that you were provided with
insufficient, inaccurate and erroneous information by your client, Ms. Maria Manaligod,
regarding the history, veracity and accuracy of facts of her employment with CDF.
Allow us to discuss this matter to you founded on sufficient substantiation. Based from the
records, Ms. Manaligod was hired as a SEASONAL EMPLOYEE by CDF sometime in February
1978 as a Tobacco sorter. For the years 1978 and 1979, Ms. Manaligod only worked with CDF for
30 days (2 weeks for 1978 and 3 weeks for 1979) since the season and the need for tobacco
sorters was only for that given period of time. Thereafter, Ms. Manaligod failed to report for
work despite several notices given by our client for the years 1980 up to 2007.
As a matter of fact, Ms. Manaligod only reported back to work as seasonal employee for the
tobacco seasons in 2008 up to 2014 wherein she was assigned to her old position as tobacco
sorter. Attached for your reference are the company records detailing the number of days that
Ms. Manaligod reported for work at CDF for the years 2008-2014.
Accordingly, the labor law particularly Article 287 states that, to wit:
Any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age established in
the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable employment contract.
In case of retirement, the employee shall be entitled to receive such retirement
benefits as he may have earned under existing laws and any collective
bargaining agreement and other agreements: Provided, however, that an

employee's retirement benefits under any collective bargaining and other

agreements shall not be less than those provided herein.
In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement providing for retirement
benefits of employees in the establishment, an employee upon reaching the age
of sixty (60) years or more, but not beyond sixty-five (65) years which is hereby
declared the compulsory retirement age, who has served at least five (5) years
in the said establishment, may retire and shall be entitled to retirement pay
equivalent to at least one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, a
fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year (emphasis
ours).
Correspondingly, the employment records of your client will show that the former never
completed the minimum number of years as required by the above-quoted law. As a matter of
fact, your client fell short of about a year to be able to qualify for the retirement benefits as
provided therein.
Applying the above-mentioned law, specifically the provision that states a fraction of at least
six (6) months being considered as one whole year, your client was able to comply only for four
years since only in 2011 to 2014 was your client able to work for at least 6 months in a given
year thus, be considered as one whole year. Using the above provision of the Labor Code, it is
obvious that your client is short of one year of the required minimum number of years as
provided thereof.
Further, may I direct your attention to the nature of a SEASONAL EMPLOYEE as discussed in
ELVIRA ABASOLO, ET. AL., v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, G.R. No.
118475, November 29, 2000 which states to wit:
In the case of Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing & Redrying Corporation v. NLRC
this Court, when faced with the question of whether the separation pay of a
seasonal worker, who works for only a fraction of a year, should be equated with
the separation pay of a regular worker, resolved that question in this wise:
The amount of separation pay is based on two factors: the amount of monthly
salary and the number of years of service. Although the Labor Code provides
different definitions as to what constitutes "one year of service," Book Six does
not specifically define "one year of service" for purposes of computing
separation pay. However, Articles 283 and 284 both state in connection with
separation pay that a fraction of at least six months shall be considered one
whole year. Applying this case at bar, we hold that the amount of separation pay
which respondent members xxx should receive is one-half (1/2) their respective
average monthly pay during the last season they worked multiplied by the
number of years they actually rendered service, provided that they worked for
at least six months during a given year.

Thus, in the said case, the employees were awarded separation pay equivalent to
one (1) month, or to one-half (1/2) month pay for every year they rendered
service, whichever is higher, provided they rendered service for at least six (6)
months in a given year. As explained in the text of the decision in the said case,
"month pay" shall be understood as "average monthly pay during the last season
they worked."
Consequently, the computation of the period of "one year of service" in the above mentioned
jurisprudence is analogous with the issue at hand. The computation of the requirement of at
least 5 years in the retirement provision of the Labor Code particularly for a seasonal
employee should adhere to the above mentioned jurisprudence since your client rendered work
year after year or season after season, without rendering at least 6 months in a given
year/season thus, applying the above-mentioned ruling of the Supreme Court, your client only
rendered 4 years of service, disqualifying her of the benefits provided for by law.
In spite of this, our client, informed and advised your client not to proceed with her decision to
resign however, your client did otherwise. She voluntarily resigned sometime in August 2014
since she, based on her statement, has no more strength to continue her duties and
responsibilities as a tobacco sorter because of her physical difficulties particularly her eyesight
and advance age.
Thus, this peculiar circumstance prompted our clients, in good faith and for humanitarian
purposes, to give Ms. Manaligod financial assistance of four thousand pesos (Php 4,000.00) on
the day she resigned from work. Following your clients resignation, she also executed
voluntarily a deed of release, waiver and quitclaim. Attached for your reference is a copy of the
quitclaim signed by your client and with a considerable amount by way of financial assistance
as indicated in a check voucher
Lastly, this is to inform you that your client has already initiated a complaint against our clients
with the same issues and subject matter before the National Labor Relations Commission. The
claims and demands of your client, being baseless both in law and jurisprudence should be
proceeded with extreme caution since it will compel our client to resort to the appropriate legal
actions that tend protect its interest, credibility and honor. Attached is a notice of conference
from the National Labor Relations Commission, Isabela Field Office.

Very truly yours,

APOLLO X.C. S. SANGALANG

5th floor, Builders Center, Salcedo Village, Makati City
09778233825