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.