Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region

CLARIBEL CASIBO ANDALES,

Complainant,

-versus- NLRC LAC __________________

NLRC NCR Case No. 03-00472-21

UNIFIED PRODUCTS AND

SERVICES, INC.,
Respondents.
x---------------------------x

MEMORANDUM OF PARTIAL APPEAL

Respondents-Appellants, through counsel, to this Honorable

Office, most respectfully state: THAT—

I. NATURE OF APPEAL

1.1. This is partial appeal from the Decision 1 of the Honorable

Labor Arbiter Marlon Shane T. Madeja dated 04 January 2022 in so
far as the grant of 13th month pay and attorney’s fees is concerned.
This Memorandum of Appeal is being filed in accordance with Rule VI
of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure.

1.2. The Decision dated 04 January 2022, while dismissing

the complaint for illegal dismissal, declared Unified Products and
Services, Inc. liable for 13th month pay and attorney’s fees. For easy
reference the dispositive portion of the said Decision is quoted
hereunder as follows:

1
See copy of Decision dated 27 October 2014, attached as Annex “1” hereof.
 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
Page 2 of 16

WHEREFORE, premises considered,

complainant’s complaint for illegal dismissal is
hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

However, respondent UNIFIED

PRODUCTS AND SERVICES INC. is directed
to pay complainant CLARIBELL CASIBO
ANDALES the amount of P52,250,
representing her money claims as above-
discussed.

Respondents are also likewise directed

to pay the PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
attorney’s fees in the amount of P4,750.00.
Said amount shall be deposited in the
National Treasury as a trust fund to be used in
accordance with Republic Act No. 9406.

All other claims are dismissed for lack of

merit.

SO ORDERED.”

II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

2.1. On 15 February 2022, a copy of the Decision dated 04

February 2022 was received by Respondents-Appellants through
counsel.

2.2. Rule VI, Section 1 of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure

on Periods of Appeal states that “(d)ecisions, awards, or orders of the
Labor Arbiter shall be final and executory unless appealed to the
Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from
receipt thereof”.

2.3. Counted from 15 February 2022, Respondents-Appellants

have until 25 February 2022 within which to file this Memorandum of
Appeal. Hence, the same is timely filed.

III. THE PARTIES

 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
Page 3 of 16

3.1. Respondent GPRS-UNIFIED PRODUCTS AND

SERVICES, INC. (hereafter referred to as “GPRS-Unified”) is a
corporation organized and existing in accordance with Philippine
Laws. Its business address is at 1520 JR Building, Mezzanine Floor,
Quezon Avenue, Brgy. South Triangle, Quezon City. Respondent
Company may be served with orders, notices and other processes of
this Honorable Office at the address of the undersigned counsel as
indicated below.

3.2. Meanwhile, Emmanuel Pascual and Genalyn Cruz were

impleaded in this case being the persons in charge for the
respondent company. They may likewise be served with orders,
notices and other processes of this Honorable Office at the address
of the undersigned counsel indicated below.

3.3. On the other hand, the complainant in this case is Claribel

Casibo Andales. She is of legal age and with address at Block 77.
Lot 21 Commando Road, Brgy. Rizal, City of Makati, where she may
be served with orders, notices and other processes of this Honorable
Office.

IV. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND OF THE CASE

4.1. This is a complaint for alleged illegal dismissal, non-

payment of salary/wage, service incentive leave pay and 13 th month
pay. The Complainant herein is praying for separation pay.

4.2. Prior to the filing of complaint, Ms. Andales served as

Operations Manager of the Respondent Company. To prove this,
attached is the employment contract of Ms. Andales (attached as
ANNEX “1”, Position Paper). The commencement of his work with the
Respondent Company was on 30 July 2018.

4.3. After some time, Ms. Andales turned out to become a

problematic managerial employee of the company as several reports
surfaced regarding her being negligent and her propensity to defy
company rules and policies. This notwithstanding, complainant was
still paid properly and consistently of her compensation and benefits.
 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
Page 4 of 16

4.4. To be specific, Ms. Andales had been a recipient of three

notices to explain which, to reiterate, translate to her being negligent
and her propensity to defy company rules and policies.

4.5. First, a Notice to Explain dated 15 July 2019 (attached as

ANNEX “2-Series”, Position Paper) was issued and received by her
on July 16, 2019. The subject matter of this is the unliquidated cash
receipts pertaining to the travel tax payments of several individuals,
particularly:

4.5.1. Payment Voucher (1) dated January 24, 2019: payee

Arlene Asotigue;

4.5.2. Payment Voucher (2) dated February 1, 2019; payee

Mary Catherine Vida;

4.5.3. Payment Voucher (3) dated February 19, 2019; payee

Ms. Catherine Ang-ug;

4.5.4. Payment Voucher (4) dated February 21, 2019; payee

Ms. Claribell Andales;

4.6.5. Payment Voucher (5) dated March 21, 2019; payee Ms.
Riza Teblane;

4.6.6. Payment Voucher (6) dated April 10, 2019; payee Guide
Electronics;

4.7.7. Payment Voucher (7) dated May 28, 2019; payee Ms.
Claribell Andales;

4.8.8. Payment Voucher (8) dated June 18, 2019; payee Ms.
Claribell Andales;

4.9. In her respective written explanations (attached as ANNEX

“3-Series”, Position Paper), Ms. Andales reasoned out that the
subject amounts were received and disbursed by other individuals.
However, during the administrative hearing conducted on 30
 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
Page 5 of 16

September 2019, she admitted that considering that the money was
released to her, the obligation and responsibility to liquidate belongs
to her.

4.10. Second, a Notice to Explain dated 09 August 2019

(attached as ANNEX “4”, Position Paper). This arose from the
incident report submitted by the Accounting Department, which is
quoted below:

“TO: HR Department
FROM: Accounting Department
DATE: August 1, 2019
SUBJECT: ISSUANCE SLIP – REFERENCE NO.: QA-36838
MS. CLARIBEL ANDALES/JAYSON DIAUNA/JUSTIN

Incident report, regarding Issuance Slip with reference no. QA-

36938, dated July 15, 2019.

Overview:

July 01, 2019, Spot pay-ins, Unified Hongkong, Ms. Raicel Rey
Regio, with regcode: G0653027. Authorizing Ms. Josephine
Repeso to collect the “FREE GIFT WORTH PHP5,000,00” which
was promised by VP-Joselito Dias. (see P3)

July 15, 2019, Issuance Slip with reference no.: QA-36938,

prepared by Justin Dela Cruz, warehouse personnel, no signature
of approving officer and received by Erdie Ramos, which was not
the authorzed person to receive. (see P2)

June 17, 2019, Memo regarding “PROMO PACKAGE

(PRODUCTS) FOR GLOBAL PACKAGE”. (see P1)

Observations:

Effective June 17, 2019, the said MEMO was not followed by the
following Officers/Employees, resulting to negligence which cause
losses to the Company”

4.11. Meanwhile, in her written explanation (attached as

ANNEX “5”, Position Paper), Ms. Andales had this to say:

“This is with regards to the released (sic) of products under

issuance slip # QA-36938 dated July 15, 2019-releasing of products
package with no approval.

As per investigation this incident happened that no approval for

supervisor/head prior to the release of products because Ehm was
called to report to pacific and Jhermie is not yet around for her post.
 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
Page 6 of 16

It is not a problem to release a global package as long as it is

validated with admin and complied to submit necessary attachment
and documents.”

4.12. During the administrative hearing, however, Ms. Andales

admitted that there was negligence on her part considering that as
operations manager it is incumbent upon her to implement the June
17, 2019 Memorandum regarding “Promo Package (Products) Global
Package”; and that consequently it resulted in company losses.

4.13. Third, a Notice to Explain dated 13 August 2019 (attached

as ANNEX “6”, Position Paper). This arose from the incident report
submitted by the Accounting Department, which is quoted below:

“TO: HR DEPARTMENT
FROM: ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT
DATE: August 5, 2019
SUBJECT: ISSUANCE SLIP – REFERENCE NO.: QA-36410
MS. CLARIBELL ANDALES/JERMIE A.
SANDRINO/HERBERT TANDIAMA
______________________________________________________

Incident report, regarding Issuance Slip with reference no. QA-

36410, dated July 04, 2019.

Overview:

April 28, 2018, Global pay-ins, UPSI-Marketing Consultancy, Ms

Aida Manzanero, with regcode: G701582, prepared by Ms. Maria
Teresa Levita, with notation of Mr. Herbert Tandiama “Ok for
release.” (see P1)

July 04, 2019, Issuance Slip with reference no.: QA-36410,

prepared by Jermie A. Sandrino, warehouse supervisor, no
signature of approving officer, received by Aida Mazanero, no
authorization letter from UPSI Marketing Consultancy. (see P2)

June 30, 2019, Tuesday, Accounting dept., ask confirmation with

Ms. Tere Levita thru FB chat. (see P3)

Observations:

June 30, 2019, Ms. Tere Levita, confirmed with accounting

department, thru FB chat, that they don’t issue any authorization
letter regarding release of products last July 04, 2019. She also
stated that before issuance of products, normal process was, first
Ms. Claribell Andales must verify the authorization letter to UPSI,
which was not done. Negligence on the part of warehouse
supervisor for releasing of products without checking the proper
attachment (no authorization letter).”
 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
Page 7 of 16

4.14. Ms. Andales had this to lament in her written explanation

(attached as ANNEX “7”, Position Paper):

“This is with regards to the released (sic) of products under

issuance slip # QA-36410 dated July 4, 2019 with no proper
documentation and approval.

As I am under command by Herbert Tandiama before my Business

Unit Manager, things like this happened for his authority with my
decision and influence to my team was neglected as he is more
than influential than me,

I would like to ask for a consideration on this matter on behalf of my

team of not having properly followed our standards in releasing
products. Rest assured everything will be properly monitored and
verified.”

4.15. Then, during the administrative hearing, Ms. Andales

reiterated her apologies and plea for a “consideration”, while
admitting her negligence being the company’s operations manager.

4.16. The admissions made by the complainant during the

conferences and counselling conducted by the management for her;
and the pertinent documentary evidence were later on evaluated and
assessed by the management.

4.17. Consequently, on the basis of the same Notices of

Decision dated 10 October 2019, 10 October 2019 and 08 November
2019 were issued by the management terminating Claribel Andales’
services. All of these were duly received, understood and accepted
by the complainant herself.

4.17.1. The Notices of Decision are attached as ANNEX

“8” ANNEX “9” and ANNEX “10”, respectively in Complainant’s
Position Paper. Meanwhile, her respective signatures to the
said Notices of Decision are also marked as ANNEX “8-A”
ANNEX “9-A” and ANNEX “10-A”, respectively in the same.

4.18. All the while, the respondents thought that the

complainant has already accepted her fate. Thus, the receipt by the
respondents of the Summons from this Honorable Office dated 20
February 2019 came to the former’s surprise. This pertains to the
 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
Page 8 of 16

earlier filed case, which was docketed as NLRC Case No. 02-01206-
20.

4.19. Subsequently, Case No. NLRC Case No. 02-01206-20

was dismissed in an Order dated 21 December 2020.

4.20. Then, Claribel Andales re-filed her complaint and this

time, the same has been docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 03-
00472-21.

4.21. During the scheduled mandatory conciliation and

mediation conferences no settlement was reached. Hence, during the
last hearing held, the parties were ordered to submit their respective
Position Papers.

4.22. On 04 January 2022, the Honorable Labor Arbiter Marion

Shane T. Madeja issued a Decision dismissing the complaint for
illegal dismissal for lack of merit. However, in the same, the former
granted an award of 13th Month Pay and Attorney’s Fees, in favor of
the Complainant.

4.23. Hence, this appeal before the Honorable Commission.

V. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL

4.1.

FOR LACK OF ANY FACTUAL AND LEGAL JUSTIFICATION, THE

HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER COMMITTED A SERIOUS YET
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS
ENTITLED TO 13TH MONTH PAY DESPITE BEING A
MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEE.

4.2.

THE HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER COMMITTED A SERIOUS

ERROR WHEN IT ADJUDGED THE RESPONDENTS LIABLE FOR
 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
Page 9 of 16

ATTORNEY’S FEES DESPITE HIS OWN FINDINGS THAT

COMPLAINANT WAS NOT ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.

4.3.

ON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE ANENT

COMPLAINANT’S ENTITLEMENT TO HER MONEY CLAIMS AND
PRAYED AWARDS.

VI. ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1. The above grounds are to be jointly discussed for being

inextricably related. But as a walk through, the conclusion arrived at
by the labor arbiter below is unacceptable insofar as it awarded 13 th
month pay to the complainant, who was a managerial employee.
Also, since the complainant’s dismissal was valid and legal,
respondents should not have been adjudged liable to pay attorney’s
fees.

5.2. This remedy is also a respectful plea for this Honorable

Commission to exercise its corrective powers under Article 225(c) of
the Labor Code, as emended, which states that:

“Article. 225. Powers of the Commission. - The

Commission shall have the power and authority:

(a) Xxx xxx xxx.

(b) Xxx xxx xxx.

(c) To xxx xxx xxx, correct, amend, or waive any error,

defect or irregularity whether in substance or in form,
give all such directions as it may deem necessary or
expedient in the determination of the dispute before
it, and dismiss any matter or refrain from further
hearing or from determining the dispute or part
thereof, where it is trivial or where further
proceedings by the Commission are not necessary or
desirable; and (Emphasis supplied.)”
 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
Page 10 of 16

FOR LACK OF ANY FACTUAL

AND LEGAL JUSTIFICATION,
THE HONORABLE LABOR
ARBITER COMMITTED A
SERIOUS YET REVERSIBLE
ERROR IN RULING THAT THE
COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED
TO 13TH MONTH PAY DESPITE
BEING A MANAGERIAL
EMPLOYEE.
----------------------------------------------

5.3. With all due respect, complainant should not have been
awarded 13th Month Pay because she is a managerial employee. This
fact anent complainant’s former position in the company has already
been duly established during the proceedings below.

5.4. As a matter of fact, the Honorable Labor Arbiter himself

has recognized this in his Decision. Quoted below is Honorable Labor
Arbiter saying:

“Further, complainant seemed not to know her

position. As a managerial employee, she is bound to
protect the company’s interest. Xxx xxx.”

5.5. The Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the 13 th

Month Pay Law clearly states that only “rank-and-file employees” are
entitled to the same. Item number 1 of the said Guidelines reads:

“1.  Removal of Salary Ceiling.

On August 13, 1986, President Corazon C.

Aquino issued Memorandum Order No. 28 which
provides as follows:

"Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 851 is

hereby modified to the extent that all employers are
hereby required to pay all their rank-and-file
employees a 13th month pay not later than December
24 of every year." 
 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
Page 11 of 16

5.6. Fairly recently, the same guidelines have been reiterated in

Labor Advisory No. 18, Series of 2021 duly issued by the Honorable
Labor Secretary on 25 October 2021. Quoted below is the pertinent
portion of the same:

“I. COVERAGE

Rank-and-file employees in the private sector

shall be entitled to 13th month pay regardless of their
position, designation, or employment status, and
irrespective of the method by which their wages are
paid, provided they have worked for at least one (1)
month during the calendar year.”

5.7. Thus, this plea to correct the earlier inconsistency on the

matter.

THE HONORABLE LABOR

ARBITER COMMITTED A
SERIOUS ERROR WHEN IT
ADJUDGED THE
RESPONDENTS LIABLE FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES DESPITE
HIS OWN FINDINGS THAT
COMPLAINANT WAS NOT
ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.
----------------------------------------------

5.8. As aptly pointed out by the Honorable Labor Arbiter

Complainant Andales was not illegally dismissed. Therefore, she is
not entitled to her money claims and this includes attorney’s fees.
Quoted below is the pertinent portion of the Decision:

“Complainant is disillusioned by the fact that

the amount of products unauthorizedly released will
not damage the company. This just shows that she
was not acting to protect the interest of the
respondent company.

From the foregoing, this Tribunal finds

complainant to have been dismissed for a valid
cause.”
 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
Page 12 of 16

5.9. Herein respondents invoke the doctrine that “where the

employee was not dismissed and his failure to work was not due to
the employer's fault, the burden of economic loss suffered by the
employee should not be shifted to the employer.” (Chong Guan
Trading vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 81471, April 26, 1989).

5.10. In Club Filipino Inc. v. Voluntary Arbitrator et. al., (G.R.

No. 85490, July 23, 1992), the Supreme Court held that violation of
company rules and regulations is sufficient justification for
termination. In that case, the Court further ruled that the award of
separation pay is not warranted in case of dismissal for a just and
valid cause.

“In the case at bar, there can be no question of

private respondents' culpability for violation of
company rules and regulations. Their dismissal is
called for without payment of separation pay as their
dismissal is for a just and valid cause.”

5.11. Respondents strongly maintain that the complainant was

properly paid in terms of her receivables from the company.

5.12. Respondents never missed to pay complainant her

salaries and other benefits even before her employment was
severed. Otherwise, it would have been easy for her to call
respondents’ attention on the matter and in the appropriate forum. As
such, there are no non-payments to speak of here.

5.12.1. To attest to the foregoing attached in their Position

Paper as ANNEXES “11” to “43” are the pay slips from year
2018 until her termination date, showing that Ms. Andales duly
received her compensation.

5.13. All other claims by the complainants are not only nebulous
but equally doubtful.

5.14. Moreover, complainants cannot just simply assume that

this Honorable Office will rely on their bare allegations and grant their
alleged monetary claims. The question of whether or not
complainants are entitled to their claims is a question of fact, which
 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
Page 13 of 16

should be supported by substantial evidence and not just by bare

allegations. In sum, complainants failed to establish by substantial
evidence the existence of valid causes of action against the
respondents. Besides, mere allegations are not synonymous to
evidence.

5.15. In Salvador vs. Court of Appeals2, the Supreme Court said

that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. Further,
in People vs. Hamton et. al.3 It was held that it cannot be gainsaid
that self-serving declarations are inadmissible as evidence of
the facts asserted.

5.16. There was also a reversible error on the part of the

Honorable Labor Arbiter when he awarded attorney’s fees in favor of
Andales.

5.17. There was nothing in the body of the resolution which

discussed the factual or legal basis for the award of attorney’s fees to
Garcia as required under Article 2208 of the New Civil Code.

5.18. Accordingly, Respondents submit that it was an error on

the part of the Honorable Labor Arbiter to award attorney’s fees in
favor of the complainant. The rule is settled that a court must state
the factual, legal or equitable justification for its award of attorney’s
fees. Thus, in the case of S.C. Megaworld Construction and
Development Corporation vs. Engr. Parada et al., 4 the Supreme
Court held that:

“Indeed, the matter of attorney’s fees cannot

be stated only in the dispositive portion, but
the reasons must be stated in the body of the
court’s decision. This failure or oversight of
the trial court cannot even be supplied by the
CA. As concisely explained in Frias v. San
Diego-Sison:

“Article 2208 of the New Civil Code

enumerates the instances where such may be
awarded and, in all cases, it must be
2
G.R. No. 124899, March 30, 2004, citing Luxuria Homes Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil 991 (1999)
3
G.R. No. 134823-25, January 14 2003
4
G.R. No. 183804, September 11, 2013.
 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
Page 14 of 16

reasonable, just and equitable if the same

were to be granted. Attorney’s fees as part of
damages are not meant to enrich the winning
party at the expense of the losing litigant.
They are not awarded every time a party
prevails in a suit because of the policy that no
premium should be placed on the right to
litigate. The award of attorney’s fees is the
exception rather than the general rule. As
such, it is necessary for the trial court to make
findings of facts and law that would bring the
case within the exception and justify the grant
of such award. The matter of attorney’s fees
cannot be mentioned only in the dispositive
portion of the decision. They must be clearly
explained and justified by the trial court in the
body of its decision.”

5.19. Finally, let it be stressed that “(t)here must always be a

factual basis for the award of attorney’s fees. This is consistent with
the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.”5

5.20. This is the factual, legal and jurisprudential framework by

which this partial appeal is now being interposed.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Commission that the Decision dated 04 January 2022
of the Honorable Labor Arbiter Marlon Shane T. Madeja be
PARTIALLY REVERSED and SET ASIDE, finding Private
Respondents not liable for payment of 13 th Month Pay and Attorney’s
Fees.

Other measures of relief that are just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.

21 February 2022; Quezon City.

5
Pepsi Cola Products Philippines, Inc. vs. Santos, G.R. No. 165968, April 14, 2008.
 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
Page 15 of 16

By:

ALLAN V.B. LORENZO

Counsel for the Complainant
Attorney’s Roll No. 60650
IBP No. 174819; 01/05/22; Quezon City
PTR No. 2444042; 01/04/22; Quezon City
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0022895; 03/29/19
LORENZO LAW OFFICE
Room 206 FMSG Building
1823 E. Rodriguez Sr. Ave., corner New York Street, Quezon City
Email: [email protected]
Contact No.: 0917-8399004

Copy Furnished:

CLARIBEL CASIBO ANDALES

Complainant
Block 77. Lot 21 Commando Road
Brgy. Rizal, City of Makati

ATTY. MARK OLIVER C. ASIS

DOJ Public Attorney’s Office
6/F Justice Cecilia Munoz Palma Hall
DOJ Bldg., Quezon City Hall Compound
Diliman, Quezon City

HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER MARLON SHANE T. MADEJA

Bookman Building,
373 Quezon Ave., Quezon City

EXPLANATION

The undersigned counsel for the Respondents-Appellants

respectfully manifests that the foregoing Memorandum of Partial
Appeal was served upon the Complainant-Appellee and his counsel
through registered mail due to geographical distance and for lack of
sufficient messengerial personnel to effect personal service.

ALLAN V.B. LORENZO

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
Page 16 of 16