This is my assignment for our Paralegal Training on Labor Relations, Book V of the Labor Code, that was held at Pansol, Calamba City, Laguna, from June 1-3 and June 21-23, 2011. Each one of my classmates has the same assignment. I read my assignment during our graduation on June 30, 2011, held at WODP office at DOLE-Calamba, Laguna. Our professor approved of my position paper, however, the arguments are not enough, but could be improved if I really became a labor paralegal officer. I thank him for that valuable advise. It raised my spirit as a writer and as a paralegal trainee.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Name of Complainant: Junior L. Sy (with SSS ID No. 04-0669456-9)
Address: Anos, Los Banos, Laguna
Date hired: June 01, 2005
Date dismissed: May 08, 2011
Position: Material Controller / Warehouseman
Basic Salary: P380.00 / 8 hours worked
Name of respondents: Yumol Manufacturing Inc., and Imelda Roces, Personnel Manager
Address of the Company: Real, Calamba City, Laguna
Mga ebidensya na hawak ng complainant: 1. Kopya ng Certificate of Employment na nagtrabaho siya mula June 01, 2005 to May 08, 2011; 2. Pay slip ng kanyang sweldo mula May 2, 2011 to May 08, 2011; 3. Police blotter / report dated May 08, 2011
Note: Mula ng pagtatrabaho ng complainant, ngayon lang siya nagkaroon ng kaso mula sa kumpanya. Na-promote siya noong May 02, 2007 mula sa machine operator at naging material controller
> On 08 May 2009, during complainant's breaktime (around 12:40-12:45 noon) and after taking his lunch, complainant proceeded at the smoking area (inside the company premises). As Mr. De Guzman, complainant co-employee, passes through guard, the metal detector buzzed and guard on duty found from Mr. De Guzman 25 pieces of USB connector which De Guzman used in repairing cellular phones. At this juncture, complainant is removing metal items in his body when he noticed that around 500 small pieces of microphones (which are using in the manufacturing of cell phone) are in his uniform pocket. He removed the microphones and surrendered the same to SG Lim, the guard on duty. Their ID's were confiscated by the guard. After smoking, complainant proceeded at his work place at around 1:00 PM.
> After few minutes, complainant and Mr. De Guzman were directed to report at Manager's Office wherein they were met by Imelda Roces, the Personnel Manager. They were accused of stealing company properties. Complainant verbally explained that he did not steal any company properties. But they were instructed to get inside the car and they proceeded at the nearby Calamba Police Station.
> At the Police Station, they were interrogated regarding the alleged stealing. Complainant explained that he did not steal company property and that the parts (microphones) was voluntarily surrendered to the guard by complainant before going to smoking area inside the company premises. Complainant further explained that the incident can be seen through the CCTV camera placed at the guard station / post and he requested that the video tape be presented to the management and police station to see the real incident, but to no avail. They were advised by the police officer to resolve the issue at the plant / company. The full details at the discussions / conversations regarding the alleged stealing were recorded at the Police Station.
> At the company, they were advised by the Personnel Manager that the President of the company decided to terminate their services and their ID were confiscated and were directed to leave the company premises. Complainant pleaded to reconsider their decision and asked to give an opportunity to explain his side, but his plea fell to deaf ears of respondents.
> On 15 June 2011, complainant filed a complaint at the National Labor Relations Commission - Regional Arbitration Branch IV at Calamba City against respondents for illegal dismissal. The case was docketed as NLRC-RAB IV Case No. 06-00235-11-L.
> Parties failed to settle the case amicably in the mandatory conference at NLRC. They were required by the Labor Arbiter to submit their verified position paper on 30 June 2011.
MY ASSIGNMENT:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
National Labor Relations Commission
Regional Arbitration Branch IV
Calamba City, Laguna
JUNIOR L. SY
Complainant
NLRC-RAB IV Case No. 06-00235-11-L
vs
Yumol Manufacturing Inc., and Imelda Roces, Personnel Manager
Respondent
POSITION PAPER
Complainant, through counsel and unto this Honorable Office most respectfully submits this Position Paper, thus;
PARTIES IN THE CASE
1. The complainant, Junior L. Sy, with SSS ID No. 04-0669456-9, worked as an employee of Yumol Manufacturing Inc., located at Real, Calamba City, Laguna. He worked in the said company from June 01, 2005 until May 08, 2011, with basic salary P380.00 per 8 hours worked per day. From machine operator, he was promoted to material controller / warehouseman on May 2, 2007.
2. The respondents, Yumol Manufacturing Inc., located at Real, Calamba City, Laguna, which is the company that Junior L. Sy worked with, and Imelda Roces, Personnel Manager of the said company.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On 08 May 2009, during complainant's breaktime (around 12:40-12:45 noon) and after taking his lunch, complainant proceeded at the smoking area (inside the company premises). As Mr. De Guzman, complainant co-employee, passes through guard, the metal detector buzzed and guard on duty found from Mr. De Guzman 25 pieces of USB connector which De Guzman used in repairing cellular phones. At this juncture, complainant is removing metal items in his body when he noticed that around 500 small pieces of microphones (which are using in the manufacturing of cell phone) are in his uniform pocket. He removed the microphones and surrendered the same to SG Lim, the guard on duty. Their ID's were confiscated by the guard. After smoking, complainant proceeded at his work place at around 1:00 PM.
2. After few minutes, complainant and Mr. De Guzman were directed to report at Manager's Office wherein they were met by the respondent, Imelda Roces, the Personnel Manager. They were accused of stealing company properties. Complainant verbally explained that he did not steal any company properties. But they were instructed to get inside the car and they proceeded at the nearby Calamba Police Station.
3. At the Police Station, they were interrogated regarding the alleged stealing. Complainant explained that he did not steal company property and that the parts (microphones) was voluntarily surrendered to the guard by complainant before going to smoking area inside the company premises. Complainant further explained that the incident can be seen through the CCTV camera placed at the guard station / post and he requested that the video tape be presented to the management and police station to see the real incident, but to no avail. They were advised by the police officer to resolve the issue at the plant / company. The full details at the discussions / conversations regarding the alleged stealing were recorded at the Police Station.
4. At the company, they were advised by the Personnel Manager that the President of the company decided to terminate their services and their ID were confiscated and were directed to leave the company premises. Complainant pleaded to reconsider their decision and asked to give an opportunity to explain his side, but his plea fell to deaf ears of respondents.
5. Complainant filed an illegal dismissal case against the respondents.
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
1. The issues to be resolved are whether the complainant was terminated for a just cause, and whether complainant was accorded due process.
2. The complainant wants to be reinstated by the company because there is no just cause for the illegal dismissal case by the company, and he was the breadwinner of his family,
ARGUMENT / DISCUSSIONS
1. The complainant was accused by stealing when in fact he only went to the smoking area about 15 minutes before he went back to work. Therefore he is not going home. The smoking area is within the perimeter of the company, and it is the only area allowed by the company for the employees to smoke.
2. The complainant voluntarily surrendered to the guard on duty, SG Lim, the 500 small pieces of microphones (which are using in the manufacturing of cell phone) which are in his uniform pocket will readily be used at work after he smoke and after breaktime.
3. The complainant argued that the company has no just cause to dismiss him because he was not accorded due process. He was not given time to explain his side to defend himself. As a regular employee, he has right for security of tenure, and he should not be terminated by the company without just cause. (Rolando Roxas Surveying vs NLRC 125 SCRA 36).
4. Any termination, dismissal and suspension of workers in the company accused by any case, but without hearing of the complaints, should be treated as null and void. (FEWA vs CIR, 14 SCRA 781; Magtoto vs NLRC, 140 SCRA 58; Akay Printing vs MOLE, 140 SCRA 381; De Leon vs NLRC, 100 SCRA 691; BLTB vs Court of Appeals, 71 SCRA 470; Reyes vs Phil. Duplicators, 109 SCRA 489; Phil Movie Prod. Assn. vs Premier, GR No. L-5621, March 25 1963).
5. In termination proceedings of employees, procedural due process consists of the twin requirements of notice and hearing. The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the second informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him. The requirement of a hearing is complied with as long as there was an opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted. (Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc., et al. vs. Ricardo P. Albayda, Jr., G.R. No. 172724, August 23, 2010.)
PRAYER
WHEFOR, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed from this Honorable Office that judgment be rendered in favor of tha Complainant with the following terms:
1. Finding the respondents liable / guilty for illegally dismissing the complainant without due process;
2. Ordering the respondent to reinstate the complainant to his former work.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances also prayed for.
City of Calamba, June 30, 2011
PROLETARIAN PARALEGAL OFFICE
Calamba City, Laguna
Counsel for the Complainant
BY:
GREGORIO V. BITUIN JR.
Paralegal Officer
VERIFICATION
I, JUNIOR L. SY, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:
1. That I am the complainant in the above-entitled case;
2. That I caused the preparation of the foregoing Position Paper;
3. That all the allegations therein contained are true and correct to the best of our knowledge;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 29th day of June, 2011 at the City of Calamba.
JUNIOR L. SY
Affiant
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento