You are on page 1of 3

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment


National Labor Relations Commission
National Capital Region
Quezon City

Theresa C. Labao, et. al.,

Complainants

versus

NLRC NCR Case #09-12904-09

Jing Xing Sunglasses/Face Plus


Merchandising, et. al.,

Respondents

Respondent’s Position Paper

Respondent through the undersigned unto this Honorable


Office most respectfully submit this Position Paper and in
support thereof avers the following:

Parties

Respondent(s), Jing Xing Sunglasses with present


address at Avenida Shopper Gold, Pasilio M-1, Santa Cruz,
Manila 1014 and Face Plus Merchandising with present address
at S-79-80 Baclaran LRT Shopping Mall, Taft Avenue, Pasay
City 1300 herein represented by its owner Ms. Susan So being
impleaded as party respondent,
Complainant(s) Theresa C. Labao is of legal age,
single, and a resident of 402 Samar Street, Bo. Pitogo,
Guadalupe, Makati City 1212 and Maricel D. Marchan of legal
age, single

Statement of the Case

This is a case of an alleged illegal dismissal filed by


complainants against herein respondent.

Facts of the Case

Complainant Ms. Theresa C. Labao alleged that on June


5, 2001, she was hired by Ms. Susan So as saleslady. The
other complainant Ms. Maricel Marchan alleged also that she
was hired as saleslady sometime in 2008.
As salesladies, complainants’ main duty is to assist
the stall owner in the daily sales activities of the stall.
In the performance of their duties, complainants were
given instruction not to take a leave of absence together or
both at the same time since they were the only two
salesladies in the stall. However, complainants violated
this rule for being absent one day both at the same time.
Complainant Theresa C. Labao reasoned out that she went
to see her doctor because she was pregnant. Respondent could
not believe at first what she learned about the complainant
since she knew her as being single. Nevertheless,
complainant was reprimanded for not asking permission first
and she did not like it.
On the other hand, co-complainant Maricel Marchan was
also reprimanded for giving flimsy reason why she was
absent.
Both complainants disliked being reprimanded hence they
connived and resorted to filing this complaint saying they
were illegally dismissed.
The other respondent, Jing Xing Sunglasses, has no
connection whatsoever with the complainants. They were never
employed in any capacity by the said company.

Statement of the Issues

Whether or not the complainants were illegally


dismissed?
Whether or not the complainants are entitled to the
claim of separation pay?

Arguments/Discussions

Complainants were not illegally dismissed from employment.


The complainants were not dismissed much more illegally
dismissed from employment. It was their own volition not to
report for work as retaliation for being reprimanded. They
knew very well that the respondent would suffer difficulties
in conducting her business without them.
As alleged in their complaint, they were illegally
dismissed on Sep. 05, 2009. How could this be since both
complainants still reported for work after the said date,
from Sep. 06–23, 2009 and received their salaries from the
respondent?
If their allegation were true, why would respondent
still allowed them to work and gave them their salaries?
Complainant Maricel Marchan while their complaint is
still pending in your office, applied and worked for other
employer in the same vicinity as that of the respondent. And
the irony of it, she received 110 pesos per day as salary.
The complainants’ basis for being illegally dismissed
has no leg to stand on. They alleged that a friend of the
respondent told them that she overheard the husband of the
respondent said while they were eating supper to dismiss Ms.
Labao for being pregnant. Thus, she convinced Ms. Marchan to
stop reporting for work and joined her in filing this
complaint.
The respondent Susan So strongly and vehemently denied
that she had dismissed much more illegally dismissed the
complainants, most especially Ms. Theresa C. Labao since she
had worked for her for so many years. It was their own
decision not to work anymore for the respondent.

Complainants Are Not Entitled To the Claim of Separation Pay

Since the complainants were not dismissed much more


illegally dismissed from employment as it was their own
decision not to report for work anymore, they are not
entitled to the claim of separation pay.
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, it is most
respectfully prayed for unto this Honorable Office that the
complaint be dismissed for lack of merit.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed
for under the premises.

November 12, 2009, Manila

Ms. Susan So

You might also like