Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

National Capital Region
Quezon City
JUNTINO S. ALAIR,
14
Complainant,

NLRC-NCR CASE NO. 09-11853-

-versusLOCKHEED DETECTIVE & WATCHMAN AGENCY, INC.,

Respondent,
x---------------------x

POSITION PAPER
COMPLAINANT unto this Honorable Labor Arbitration Office most
respectfully submits this position paper and avers the following to wit:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
The Complainant in this case is JUNTINO S. ALAIR, of legal age,
single, with post office address at 753 Quirino Highway San Bartolome
Novaliches, Quezon City where he could be served with summons and
other legal processes of this Honorable Office.
The Respondent is LOCKHEED DETECTIVE & WATCHMAN AGENCY,
INC., a business establishment owned by Mr. Esteban Uy, with business
address at EU State Tower, 30 Quezon Ave. Quezon City, where the said
establishment and representative could be served with summons and
other legal processes of this Honorable Office.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Complainant was an employee, hired as a Security Guard by the
Respondent, Lockheed Detective & Watchman Agency, Inc. on September
1993. From then on, he was assigned by the Respondent to its various
clients within Metro Manila area.

The business undertaking of the said

Respondent is to deploy Security Guards to its various clients all over the
Philippines with known sister companies involved in the same line of
business like ADVANCE FORCES SECURITY & INVESTIGATION SERVICES,
INC, where in fact, the Complainant was deployed by the Respondent
sometime in 1998 for more or less five (5) to six (6) months (a copy of the
issued Identification Card is attached hereto as Annex A),
Complainant is just one of its

the

thousands of employee security guards. A

copy of the Identification Card issued by the Respondent to the

Complainant is hereto attached as Annex B as proof of the latters
employment.
The Complainant worked for six (6) days a week but sometimes have
to render seven (7) days a week. He normally worked for 8 hours per day
but there were times he has to render twelve (12) hours depending on
their assigned post.
The monthly wage rage

of the Complainant is more or less Php

13,400 inclusive of COLA, Uniform allowance, Incentive Pay, Night

Differential (if any), Additional Time, as reflected in his

latest payslips

herein attached as Annex C.

Sometime in 2011, the Complainant was assigned in the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) NOB Security Detachment in Agham Road, Diliman,
Quezon City as shown by herein attached Annex D and as reflected in
the payslips Annex C.
On February

2014, Complainant and his co- security guards were

told by the Respondent that their contract with their client BIR was no
longer renewed and thus were told to wait for their next assignment or
posting. Thereafter, Complainant made follow- ups in the Respondents
office regarding his next assignment or posting however was told by the
officer- in- charge to wait and in fact in some instances told that he was
already old to be assigned to some posts/ or of because of clients
preference. He was given the impression that he was already old to be
assigned to some place of duty/ clients.
The Complainant was not given any monthly pay by the Respondent
starting from his last assignment or duty (February up to this date).
Disappointed with the Respondents response on his wish to finally
be given another post/ duty, complainant filed the instant complaint
before this Honorable Office on September 8, 2014.
On September 16 and 23, 2014, a mandatory conciliation and
mediation conferences were held but no settlement was reached, although
the Respondent through its representative/ counsel offered by way of
settlement an amount of more or less Php 100,000. Further a mandatory
conference on October 8 and 15, 2014 were held for a possibility of
amicable settlement and determination of other matters. However, on the

last day of the hearing, October 15, 2014, the counsel/ representative for
the Respondent offered the Complainant a Detail Duty Order / Special
Order for Assignment at Quezon City Hall (as reflected in the minutes of
that last hearing herein attached as Annex E) but the latter did not
accept the belated offer. The Complainant gave the indication that due to
strained relations and the insinuation that he is already old to be given
another position / duty refused to be reinstated. As a consequence, this
Honorable Office issued an order directing the parties to submit their
respective position paper.
Hence, this position paper.

ISSUES
1. WHETHER

OR

NOT

THE

COMPLAINANT

WAS

ILLEGALLY

DISMISSED.
2. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO SEPARATION
PAY OF 1 (ONE) MONTH SALARY FOR EVERY YEAR OF SERVICE,
13TH MONTH PAY FOR THE YEAR 2014, SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE
PAY, HOLIDAY PAY, OVERTIME/ NIGHT DIFFERENTIAL PAY, UNIFORM
ALLOWANCE, BACKWAGES AND OTHER BENEFITS MANDATED BY
LAW.
3. WHETHER OR NOT, THE RESPONDENT IS LIABLE TO THE
COMPLAINANT FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND MORAL DAMAGES.
4. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT IS ENTILED TO RECOVER
ATTORNEYS FEES FROM RESPONDENT.

DISCUSSIONS
FIRST ISSUE: (ILLEGAL DISMISSAL)
From the foregoing facts, it is clear that the dismissal of the
complainant was illegal thus he should be paid of his separation pay as
provided by law. The Respondent was put on a Floating Status for a
period exceeding six (6) months. The "floating status" of such an
employee should last only for a reasonable time. As in the case of Agro
Commercial Security Services, Agency, Inc. vs NLRC (G.R. Nos. 82823-24,

July 31, 1989) where in this case, respondent labor arbiter correctly held
that when the "floating status" of said employees lasts for more than six
(6) months, they may be considered to have been illegally dismissed from
the service. Thus, they are entitled to the corresponding benefits for their
separation.
Further in Sentinel Security Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC, et.al. (G.R.
122468, Sept. 3, 1998), states that, A floating status requires the dire
exigency of the employers bona fide suspension of operation, business or
undertaking. In security services, this happens when the clients that do
not renew their contracts with a security agency are more than those that
do and the new ones that the agency gets. However, in the case at bar,
the Agency was awarded a new contract by the Client.
surplus of security guards over available assignments.

There was no
If there were, it

was because the Agency hired new security guards. Thus, there was no
suspension of operation, business or undertaking, bona fide or not, that
would have justified placing the complainants off-detail and making them
wait for a period of six months. If indeed they were merely transferred,
there would have been no need to make them wait for six months. The
only logical conclusion from the foregoing discussion is that the Agency
illegally dismissed the complainants.
In all indications the Respondent has no reason not to give another
duty or position to the Complainant for a period exceeding six (6) months
considering it is one of the biggest Security Agencies in the country with
known other sister security agencies as mentioned in the foregoing. The
Respondent in fact continues to hire new Security Guards and have posted
them all over their clients here in Metro Manila and the rest of the country.
The Respondent has so many clients in the country, the belated offer of
the Respondent of a new Detail/ Duty assignment to the Complainant
bears this out and as per knowledge of the latter that assignment being
offered (at the Quezon City Hall) was already existing a long time ago.
Thus, constructive dismissal is glaring in this instant case.
SECOND ISSUE: (SEPARATION PAY OF 1 (ONE) MONTH SALARY FOR EVERY
YEAR OF SERVICE, 13TH MONTH PAY FOR THE YEAR 2014, SERVICE
INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY, HOLIDAY PAY, OVERTIME/ NIGHT DIFFERENTIAL PAY,
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE, BACKWAGES, AND OTHER BENEFITS MANDATED BY
LAW.)
As to the entitlement of 13th Month pay, service incentive leave pay,
holiday pay premiums, overtime/ night differential pay, uniform allowance

and other benefits mandated by law, the Complainant believes that he is

entitled to the same just like all other regular employees and as
guaranteed by the Labor Code of the Philippines.

The complainant by

reason of the illegal dismissal was deprived of his 13th Month pay, service
incentive leave pay, holiday pay premiums, overtime/ night differential
pay, uniform allowance and other benefits.
The Complainant does not pray for reinstatement; in fact, opted not
to be reinstated. Thus, following the case of Sentinel Security Agency, Inc.
vs.

NLRC,

et.al.

(G.R.

122468,

Sept.

3,

1998)

reinstatement is no longer feasible in this case.

when

however,

The Agency cannot

reassign them to the Client, as the former has recruited new security
guards; the complainants, on the other hand, refuse to accept other
assignments. Verily, complainants do not pray for reinstatement; in fact,
they refused to be reinstated.

Such refusal is indicative of strained

relations. Thus, separation pay is awarded in lieu of reinstatement.

The Complainant is entitled to separation pay as affirmed by the
Supreme Court in the case of Agro Commercial, as well as the case of
Sentinel Security Agency, stated above, thus, when the labor arbiter
rendered his decision, he considered those who have been out of work or
"floating status" for a period exceeding six (6) months to have been
terminated from the service without just cause thus entitling them to the
corresponding benefits for such separation. Thus, pursuant to Article 283
of the Labor Code the Complainant is entitled to his separation pay
equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service.
The Complainant by reason of his illegal dismissal is entitled to
backwages, the Supreme Court pronounced

in Philippine Industrial

Security Agency Corp. vs. Dapiton (377 Phil. 951, 966 (1999), that the
backwages had to be paid by the employer as part of the price or penalty
he had to pay for illegally dismissing his employee. It was to be computed
from the time of the employees illegal dismissal up to the time of his
reinstatement.
THIRD ISSUE: ( EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND MORAL DAMAGES)
The herein Complainant is entitled to moral damages because the
dismissal of the complainant was attended by bad faith of constitutive of
an act oppressive to labor. In the case of Lim vs. National Labor Relations
Commission (G.R. No. 79907,

March 16, 1989), the Supreme Court

upheld the award of moral as well as exemplary damages in view of the

bad faith attendant to the treatment of the employee.
In the instant case, there is no other plausible explanation for the
acts (or its conspicuous absence) of the Respondent of the manner
wherein the Complainant was deprived of his employment except bad
faith. One glaring proof is its belated offer (or an afterthought to
circumvent the law) to the Complainant of a new Detail/ Duty only when
he has already commenced filing of this complaint. Another was when in
the course of the Conciliation- Mediation process (as stated above) the
Respondent through its counsel/ representative offered the Complainant a
meager sum in order for him to finally quit and be considered separated
from service. These are clearly abusive conduct of the Respondent and an
attempt to exploit the socio- economic standing of its employees/ workers.
This is oppressive thus warrants Exemplary Damages for the Complainant
by way of example or correction for the public good.
Furthermore, as the Complainant suffered mental anguish, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, and social humiliation by reason of the
Respondents unreasonable acts and in particular because the former has
to face financial uncertainty caused by this Legal Action a claim for Moral
Damages therefore is in order.
FOURTH ISSUE: (RESPONDENT IS LIABLE FOR ATTORNEYS FEES
Under Article 2208 of the New Civil Code, attorney's fees can be
recovered in actions for the recovery of wages of laborers and actions for
indemnity under employer's liability laws. Attorney's fees are also
recoverable when the defendant's act or omission has compelled the
Plaintiff to incur expenses to protect his interest.
In the instant case, respondents refusal to give complainant another
duty/ post in an unreasonable period of time and where in fact there were
a lot of their existing clients where the latter could have been given new
assignment/ duty/ post which is tainted with bad faith has compelled the
complainant to hire the services of the counsels or attorneys for a fee
(from consultations, notarization etc.) in order to protect his right and
interest.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Labor Arbiter, that decision be rendered, to wit:
1.

Declaring the act of the herein Respondent as constituting

illegal dismissal.

2.

Ordering Respondent to pay unto the Complainant

separation pay of 1 (one) Month salary for every year of
service, 13th month pay for the year 2014, service
incentive leave pay, holiday pay, overtime/ night
differential pay, uniform allowance, backwages, and other
benefits mandated by law.

3.

Ordering the Respondent to pay his salary for the month of

March 2014 up to the disposition of this case representing
BACKWAGES.

4.

Furthermore, it is likewise prayed unto the Honorable

Labor Arbiter to order the Respondent to pay the herein
Complainant the amount of Php 100,000

as moral

damages and the amount of Php 50, 000 as exemplary

damages.
5.

Respondent pay the Attorneys fees equivalent to 10% of

the judgment award.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are also prayed
for.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Quezon City, November 3, 2014.

VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATE OF NON- FORUM SHOPPING

I, JUNTINO S. ALAIR, of legal age and Filipino, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state THAT:
I am the complainant in the above-entitled case; I have caused the
preparation of the foregoing position paper and I have read the same and
the contents of which are true and correct of my own knowledge and/or on
the basis of authentic documents.
Furthermore, in compliance with the Rules of Court, I hereby certify that I
have not commenced any other action or proceedings involving the same
issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; and that to the best of my
knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court,

the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency. If I learn that a

similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I
shall notify the court, tribunal or agency within five (5) days from notice.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this November
3, 2014

JUNTINO S. ALAIR
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of _____November, 2014

the affiant has personally appeared before me and exhibiting to me his
____________
issued at______ on ________.

NOTARY PUBLIC

ANNEX A

ANNEX B

10

11

ANNEX C

12

13

ANNEX D

14

ANNEX E

15