1

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
National Labor Relations Commission
Quezon City

ROLANDO LOPEZ SALIPOT

Complainant,

-versus - NLRC-NCR-Case No. 08-14169-18

[HON. LA MA. OTILLA N. MARZAN]

E.P. DE GUZMAN CONSULTING

ENGINEER CONSTRUCTOR/
EDUARDO DE GUZMAN,
Respondents,
x---------------------------------------------x

RESPONDENTS’ REPLY
[TO RESPONDENTS’ POSITION PAPER]

Respondents, E.P. DE GUZMAN CONSULTING ENGINEER

CONSTRUCTOR and EDUARDO DE GUZMAN, by counsel, most
respectfully submit this Reply to Complainant’s Position Paper and aver:

1. Respondents assail complainant’s asseverations in his position

paper which are summarized as follows:

[a] that respondents dismissed him without substantive and procedural

due process;

[b] that being illegally dismissed he is therefore entitled to the

payment salary differentials, unpaid salary, unpaid overtime
work, and other statutory mandatory benefits including moral and
exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and other monetary claims.

2. Respondents submit all of the above claims do not have any factual
and legal basis. Perforce, his claims must fall. To support this claim,
respondents submit the following COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS:
 2

Complainant was not dismissed. There is

no cause of action. He even failed to
submit evidence of dismissal.

3. As submitted in their position paper, specifically paragraphs 14 to

18, the respondents were very clear in their defense against the allegation of
illegal dismissal. At the risk of being repetitive, we restate paragraph 18 as
follows:

“18. Resultantly, the burden of proving illegal dismissal now

shifts to the employee. He who asserts must prove his assertion, not he
who denies. Time and again, this legal maxim has been sustained by the
Supreme Court in its decision in a catena of cases.”

4. Thus, again, there are no facts showing delicts or wrongful acts on

the part of the respondents. Other than an uncorroborated quotation from
him, complainant merely stated that respondent De Guzman told him
“Umalis ka dyan, iwan mo truck, huwag ka na pumasok sa opisina.” These
are statements that need verification and corroboration. Nothing was
submitted by complainant as evidence on this matter, documentary or
otherwise.

5. Complainant’s false story was debunked further by respondents in

paragraphs 10 and 11 of their position paper, which are being restated
below for recall and clarity, to wit:

“10. For about two to three days, the complainant failed

to report for work. Respondent thereafter asked another
employee to go to complainant’s residence and tell him he
needs to report for work already. On the contrary,
complainant informed respondent through the employee that he
does not want to work with respondent’s company anymore.
Despite this, respondent still waited for complainant to calm
down and admit him back to work when he returns.
11. Weeks later, herein respondent was surprised to
receive summons from the SEnA and be accused of illegal
dismissal. Respondents denied illegal dismissal and even asked
him when he is reporting back. However, complainant refused
to report back to work. Thus, SEnA conciliation failed and a
full- blown labor complaint ensued.”

6. Thus, there is no factual and legal basis to the complainant’s

assertion that he was whimsically, capriciously, and abruptly without any
just and/or unauthorized causes. There is no clear showing that the
 3

complainant submitted clear, positive and convincing proof of his dismissal–

both substantively and procedurally.

[Affidavit of the owner of the phone used by the complainant in

answering respondents’ call.]

Respondents could not be held liable for the

monetary claims of the complainant.

7. At the risk of being repetitive, Respondents reproduce herein their

defenses against complainant’s allegations that were already proffered in
their position paper, specifically paragraphs 21 to 33 respectively, to wit:

“II. RESPONDENTS ARE NOT

LIABLE TO THE MONETARY
CLAIMS OF THE
COMPLAINANT. LIKEWISE,
COMPLAINANT IS A
REGULAR EMPLOYEE OF
RESPONDENTS.

Regularization

21. Complainant started working on July 15, 2002. He has been

with the company for more or less sixteen [16] years. Thus, there is no
basis for any claim of regularization. He has been regular all along.

Payment of Salaries and Wages

22. The respondents paid the complainant his salaries and wages.
Thus his claim for non-payment of wages has no legal basis. The burden
of proving otherwise rests with the latter.

Payment of Overtime Pay,

Holiday Pay and Holiday
Premium, Rest Days and
Premiums

23. The complainant has been paid what is due him. The
complainant employee however has the burden of proving that he
rendered compensable overtime either on his regular daily work or during
holidays and rest days. The burden to prove non-payment is with the
complainant and he failed on this task.

Night Shift Differentials, 13th month pay, Ecola

24. In Rufina Patis Factory vs. Alusitain G.R No. 146202, 14

July 2004, 434 SCRA 418, the Supreme Court had the occasion to rule as
follows:
 4

“It is a basic rule in evidence, however, that the burden of proof is on

the part of the party who makes the allegations – ei incumbit probatio,
quidi cit, nonqui negat. x x x relying on the strength of his own
evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his opponent.” 1

25. Thus, in this case, complainant has the burden of proving his
claim of illegal dismissal since the burden has shifted to him,

Service incentive leave

26. Complainant has vacation and sick leave benefits. Thus,

payment of service incentive leave has no basis.

Respondents are not liable for payment

of Moral and Exemplary Damages to
the Complainant.

27. In Nazareno v. City of Dumaguete, the Court expounded on the

requisite elements for a litigant’s entitlement to moral damages, thus:

“Moral damages are awarded if the following elements exist in the case:
(1) an injury clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) a culpable act or
omission factually established; (3) a wrongful act or omission by the
defendant as the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant;
and (4) the award of damages predicated on any of the cases stated
Article 2219 of the Civil Code. In addition, the person claiming moral
damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing
evidence for the law always presumes good faith. It is not enough that
one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish, and serious anxiety
as the result of the actuations of the other party. Invariably such action
must be shown to have been wilfully done in bad faith or with ill
motive. Bad faith, under the law, does not simply connote bad
judgment or negligence. It imports a dishonest purpose or some
moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of a known
duty through some motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the
nature of fraud.” (Emphasis supplied.)”

28. In this case, respondents did not commit acts that constituted
bad faith. Complainant could not show acts that were tainted with bad
faith, offensive to labor and done in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs, or public policies. Thus, complainant is not entitled to moral
damages.

29. Also, in Kierulf, vs. Court of Appeals, GR Nos. 99301 and

99343, March 13, 1997, the Supreme Court held that moral damages are
meant to compensate the claimant for any physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
moral shock, social humiliation and similar injuries unjustly caused.
However, this ruling could not apply in the instant case because not one
of the elements propounded herewith is present.

30. Likewise complainant could not be entitled to exemplary

damages for purposes of correction and to give example to others who are
similarly situated with respondents who are acting in wanton or oppressive
1
Rufina Patis Factory vs. Alusitain G.R No. 146202, 14 July 2004, 434 SCRA 418
 5

manner. Conclusively, respondents could not be liable for exemplary

damages not having acted in wanton or in an oppressive manner.

31. Considering the lack of evidence therefore, the claim for

damages is just a mere allegation. In Basay vs. Hacienda Consolacion,
G.R No. 175532, April 19, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that-

“x x x The one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it

and the proof should be clear, positive and convincing. In this case aside
from mere allegations, no evidence was proffered by the petitioners that
they were dismissed from employment. x x x”

32. Unfortunately for the complainant, his mere allegations in the

pro-forma complaint is not tantamount to evidence. 2

33. As stated in the preceding paragraph, without any valid and

legal basis, the complainant is not entitled to any of his monetary claims.
Thus, respondent should not be held liable for the complainant’s legal
expenses and whatever attorney’s fees he may have obligated himself
thereat on the matter. Unfortunately for him, a mere allegation in the pro-
forma complaint and in the position paper is not tantamount to evidence.3

“x x x The one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it

and the proof should be clear, positive and convincing. In this case aside
from mere allegations, no evidence was proffered by the petitioners that
they were dismissed from employment. x x x”

32. Unfortunately for the complainant, his mere allegations in the

pro-forma complaint is not tantamount to evidence. 4

33. As stated in the preceding paragraph, without any valid and legal
basis, the complainant is not entitled to any of his monetary claims. Thus,
respondent should not be held liable for the complainant’s legal expenses
and whatever attorney’s fees he may have obligated himself thereat on the
matter. Unfortunately for him, a mere allegation in the pro-forma complaint
and in the position paper is not tantamount to evidence.5

ADOPTION CLAUSE

34. Respondents incorporate, reiterate and resubmit herewith all

other arguments and discussion proffered in their position paper and reserve
the right to submit such other documents and evidence as may be necessary
in a rejoinder.

2
Martinez v. NLRC, 339 Phil. 176, 183 (1997).
3
Ibid.
4
Martinez v. NLRC, 339 Phil. 176, 183 (1997).
5
Ibid.
 6

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, given the foregoing premises, it is respectfully prayed

that this Labor Complaint against the respondent company and individual
respondent EDUARDO DE GUZMAN be DISMISSED for utter lack of
merit, thus depriving complainant of any relief in whatever form.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

January 4, 2019 Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines.

EDUARDO DE GUZMAN
Respondent

LOMABAO GAN CARRILLO PASANA LAW FIRM

ATTY. DOROTEO MIGUEL S. CARRILLO

Counsel for the Respondents
Roll of Attorney No. 33835
PTR No. 5926389, Quezon City, 01-3-19
IBP OR No. 060296, Pasig City, 01-3-19
MCLE Compliance No. V-0025299

COPY FURNISHED:

ROLANDO LOPEZ SALIPOT

865 Alley 3 Villa Beatriz, Old Balara
Diliman, Quezon City NCR 1104

ATTY. ERIC C. ALAJAR

ATTY. JONATHAN MAGALLANES
ATTY SHEHAM S. LUCMAN
The Public Attorney’s Office
Department of Justice
6th Floor, Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma Hall
DOJ Building, Quezon City
7