Scribd
Upload
149 views

PDF Reply Position Paper For Complainant

This document is a reply position paper submitted by Michael Delos Santos Harris to the National Labor Relations Commission in response to a position paper filed by Will Decena and Associates, Inc. and its owners Wilfredo L. Decena and Jean A. Decena. In the 3-page reply, Harris denies several allegations made by the respondents regarding issues related to his employment and termination. Harris asserts that he properly handled a corrective action request, that withholding of his salary forced him to take leave, and that he was not given proper notice before being issued a preventive suspension.

Uploaded by

Sheron Biase
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
149 views

PDF Reply Position Paper For Complainant

This document is a reply position paper submitted by Michael Delos Santos Harris to the National Labor Relations Commission in response to a position paper filed by Will Decena and Associates, Inc. and its owners Wilfredo L. Decena and Jean A. Decena. In the 3-page reply, Harris denies several allegations made by the respondents regarding issues related to his employment and termination. Harris asserts that he properly handled a corrective action request, that withholding of his salary forced him to take leave, and that he was not given proper notice before being issued a preventive suspension.

Uploaded by

Sheron Biase
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT


NATIONAL LABOR AND RELATIONS
COMMISSION NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
QUEZON CITY

MICHAEL DELOS SANTOS HARRIS,


Complainant,

-versus- NLRC-NCR CASE NO. 06-09345-17

WILL DECENA AND ASSOCIATES,INC./


1. WILFREDO L. DECENA
2. JEAN A. DECENA,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------x

REPLY POSITION PAPER 


(For the Complainant)

COMPLAINANT, by himself and unto to this Honorable


Office most respectfully submits this Reply to Respondent’s
Position Paper, thus avers that:

1. Complainant denies the allegation of the


Respondents’ Position Paper in paragraph 3
alleging that the Corrective Preventive Action
Request (CPAR) was not acted nor resolved.
The proof of the scheduled plan and action
was needed as proof of records or evidence
and such must be acted with due process in
the renewal of the ISO accreditation.
Complainant reiterates that the records must
be given to him, but despite the absence of
said records, the Complainant resolved the
said CPAR for the benefit and interest of the
corporation.
REPLY POSITION PAPER (COMPLAINANT)
Michael D. Santos vs Will Decena & Associates, Inc.
NLRC-NCR Case No. 06-09345-17 

said this was acknowledged by the


Company’s HRD Assistant Mr. Jeric Cabildo.
It is clear that Complainant did not fail to
follow the instruction in the Memorandum
issued by the Corporation.

3. Complainant denies paragraph 7 of the


Respondents’ Position Paper, Respondents act
of withholding the Complainant’s salary
compelled him to file his leave of absence as
he was financially constraint to sustain his
needs in going to and fro from work and also for
his daily living as his only source of his income
is his salary from the company.

4. Complainant denies paragraphs 10, 12, 13 and


14 of the Respondents’ Position Paper, he
reported back to work but his deployment was
withheld and he was told that by the HR that a
Memo and a Show Cause Order/ Notice to
Explain was sent to him, but in truth and in
fact, no such thing was received by the
Complainant. Instead, he was issued a
Preventive Suspension.

The basis of issuing a preventive suspension is


found in Section 8 of Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus
Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as amended by
Department Order No. 9, Series
of 1997 which provides:

Section 8. Preventive suspension. The


“

employer may place the worker concerned under


preventive suspension only if his continued employment
poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or
property of the
employer or of his co-workers.” 

It can be seen that the issuance of the


Respondents of Preventive Suspension is
REPLY POSITION PAPER (COMPLAINANT)
Michael D. Santos vs Will Decena & Associates, Inc.
NLRC-NCR Case No. 06-09345-17 

the life and property that affects the company’s


operations.

5. Respondents’ allegation in paragraph 15 is


also denied having no basis in fact. The truth
is that I was contacted by the Admin. Vice
President of the Company who was then my
boss way back 2012 and offered me to go
back to the Company and offered me to
work. This is a sufficient proof that I have a
satisfactory performance and that I am of
good moral attitude since I have established
a good working relationship with the
company which prompted them to rehire to
work for them as Health and Safety
Manager. The trust and confidence they
have reposed in me is a clear indication and
proof that I observe good conduct and
attitude towards them and follows rules and
instructions directed to me.

6. Complainant denies paragraphs 16 and 17 of


the Respondents’ Position Paper  having
committed serious violation of the
Complainant’s statutory and constitutional right
to due process for terminating the
Complainant’s Probationary Employment.

In the case of Court in Abbott Laboratories et.al


vs. Alcaraz, G.R. No. 192571, July 23, 2013, a
Probationary Employee, like a regular
employee, enjoys security of tenure. However,
in cases of probationary employment, aside from just or authorized causes of
the employer to the employee at the time of the
REPLY POSITION PAPER (COMPLAINANT)
Michael D. Santos vs Will Decena & Associates, Inc.
NLRC-NCR Case No. 06-09345-17 

Copy Furnished:

Will Decena& Associates Inc.


Wilfredo L. Decena and
Jean A. Decena
#70 Tandang Sora
Ave., Quezon City

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, MICHAEL DELOS SANTOS HARRIS, of legal age,


widower, and a resident of #293 Brgy. San Martin De Porres,
City of San Jose Del Monte under oath states that:

1. I am the Complainant in the instant case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Reply to


Respondents’ Position Paper;

3. That I have read and understood the contents thereof;

4. That the allegations therein are correct and true to the best
of my knowledge and belief and based on authentic records.

Done this day of September 2017, City of San Jose Del


Monte, Bulacan.

MICHAEL DELOS SANTOS HARRIS


Affiant
I.D.
Issued on at

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this day of


September 2017 in with the
affiant showing me his competent evidence of identity.

You might also like