Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City
GEORGE B.REYES,
Complainant,
- versus

NLRC CASE NO. NCR-0606446-15

Labor Arbiter REMEDIOS T.

CAPINIG
FASTRUST SERVICES, INC.,
2GO EXPRESS, SULPICIO
TAGUD,
BING
ARROYO,
ERIC
GOLPE,
JOSEPH
ABASOLO,
EMMA
ABASOLO,
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
COMPLAINANT, GEORGE B. REYES, by counsel, to
this Honorable Office, most respectfully submits this Position
Paper in support of his Complaint as follows:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
It is the policy of the state to assure the
right of workers to "security of tenure"
(Article XIII, Sec. 3 of the New Constitution,
Section 9, Article II of the 1973 Constitution).
The guarantee is an act of social justice.
When a person has no property, his job may
possibly be his only possession or means of
livelihood. Therefore, he should be protected
against any arbitrary deprivation of his job.
Article 280 of the Labor Code has
construed security of tenure as meaning that
1

"the employer shall not terminate the

services of an employee except for a just
cause or when authorized by the Code.
(Gatus v. Quality House Inc., G.R. No.
156766, April 16, 2009).
The Court has invariably affirmed that it
will not hesitate to tilt the scales of justice to
the labor class for no less than the
Constitution dictates that the State . . . shall
protect the rights of workers and promote
their welfare. It is committed to this policy
and has always been quick to rise to defense
in the rights of labor, as in this case. (Lopez
vs. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
System, 462 SCRA 428).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a case for illegal (constructive) dismissal;
underpayment of overtime pay; non-payment of salaries and
wages, overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday pay and rest day
pay premiums, service incentive leave, 13 th month pay,
ECOLA and night shift differential; illegal suspension;
regularization; moral and exemplary damages; attorneys
fees; and litigation expenses and costs of suit.
As reliefs, complainant seeks for his immediate
reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority
rights and other privileges under the law and the payment of
his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to other
benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the
time his compensation was withheld from him up to time
that he is actually reinstated.
Furthermore, complainant seeks that he will be
compensated for other money claims, moral and exemplary
damages, ten percent (10%) attorneys fees, computed from
the total monetary award, and other related litigation costs
and expenses.

PARTIES
Complainant, GEORGE B.REYES, (hereinafter referred
to as the Complainant), is of legal age, married, Filipino and
a resident of 164 Prudencio Street, Sampaloc, Manila. He is
an employee of 2GO Express and he has worked therein for
more than eight (8) years prior to his illegal dismissal. He
may be served with summonses and other legal processes
through the undersigned counsel at Room 206, Jiao Bldg.,
No. 2 Timog Avenue, Quezon City.
Respondent FASTRUST SERVICES, INC. (hereinafter
referred to as Fastrust) is a manpower agency organized and
existing under the laws of the Philippines with business
address at 611 Espiritu St., Cabrera, Pasay City. Respondents
JOSEPH ABASOLO and EMMA ABASOLO are the
responsible officers of Respondent Fastrust Services, Inc.
They may be served with summonses and other legal
processes through their business address as stated above.
Respondent 2GO EXPRESS (hereinafter referred to as
2GO) is a courier solutions and express delivery service
provider, organized and existing under the laws of the
Philippines, with business address at Durian Park, Domestic
Road, Pasay City. Respondents SULPICIO TAGUD and BING
ARROYO are the responsible officers of 2GO. Respondent
ERIC GOLPE is 2GOs unit leader who caused the inhumane
and oppressive treatment of herein Complainant. They may
be served with summonses and other legal processes
through their business address as stated above.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
Complainant was recruited, hired and deployed in
Respondent 2GO Express delivery service facility to perform
the job of a Clerk/Scanner/Sorter at their warehouse located
in Pasay City. His job is necessary, desirable and directly
related to the main business of the aforementioned
Respondent;
2.
The circumstances
surrounding the illegal
dismissal of herein Complainant was clearly established and
3

narrated by him in his own SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY,

marked as Annex A hereof, and quoted hereunder for the
appreciation of the Honorable Labor Arbiter, to wit:
AKO, si GEORGE B. REYES, Pilipino, may
asawa, nasa hustong gulang, at nakatira sa
164 Prudencio Street, Sampaloc, Manila,
pagkatapos manumpa alinsunod sa ipinaguutos ng batas, ay malaya at kusang loob na
nagsasaad ng mga sumusunod:
(1) Ako po ay empleyado ng 2GO Express
at naninilbihan dito bilang isang Clerk.
Nakalakip dito ang aking 2GO Express I.D.
bilang Annex A. Ako po ay nakatalaga
bilang
isang
Scanner/Sorter
sa
main
warehouse ng naturang kumpanya na
matatagpuan sa Durian Park, Domestic Road,
Pasay City. Nagsimula po akong magtrabaho
dito noong ika-23 ng Pebrero 2007;
(2) Magmula ng ika-23 ng Pebrero 2007
hanggang sa iligal na pagkakatanggal sa akin
noong ika-25 ng Abril 2015, ako ay
sumusuweldo sa pamamagitan ng Fastrust
Services, Inc., isang manpower agency na
may pangunahing tanggapan sa 611 Espiritu
St., Cabrera, Pasay City. Nakalakip dito ang
aking I.D. sa Fastrust bilang Annex B.
(3) Ang 2GO Express ay isang logistics at
express delivery service company at nagooperate bilang isang document and nondocument forwarding facility. Ang ibig sabihin
ay tumatanggap ang 2GO Express ng mga
dokumento at iba pang padalang gamit mula
sa mga parokyano nito. Ang
mga
dokumento
at mga gamit
na tinatanggap ng 2GO
Express ay inihahatid sa ibat-ibang sulok ng
ating bansa;
4

(4)
Bilang isang clerk ako ay naka-assign
sa scanning at sorting ng mga dokumento at
mga padalang gamit na nakatakdang ideliver sa mga consignees o receivers ng
mga ito. Ang scanning at sorting ay ginagawa
namin sa isang malaking warehouse na
inuupahan ng 2GO Express na matatagpuan
sa Durian Park, Domestic Road, Pasay City;
(5) Ang pag-scan ng mga dokumento at
mga gamit na padala ay isinasagawa upang
ito ay mai-record sa aming database. Ang
pag-sort naman ay isinasagawa upang
paghiwa-hiwalayin ang mga dokumento o
mga gamit ayon sa mga lugar, rehiyon man o
probinsiya, kung saan nakatakdang ihatid
ang mga ito;
(6) Ang regular na oras po ng aking
pagta-trabaho ay mula ala-7 ng gabi
hanggang alas-4 ng umaga, mula Lunes
hanggang Sabado. Minsan naman ay mula
ala-singko ng hapon hanggang alas-dos ng
umaga. Ang aking arawang sahod sa walong
oras na paggawa ay Apatnadaan Animnaput
Anim na Piso (Php 466.00). Kinakaltasan po
ako ng cash bond na nagkakahalaga ng
Dalawang Daan Piso (Php 200.00) kada
buwan. Bilang patunay ay nakalakip dito ang
ilan sa aking mga payslips bilang Annex
C-series;
(7) Kadalasan ay lumalagpas sa walong
oras ang aking pagta-trabaho. Ngunit
kadalasan ay hindi ako nababayaran ng
tamang overtime pay;
(8) Ang kawani sa aming area na
pumapasok sa pang-gabi na shift ay humigit5

kumulang na labing-tatlo (13). Lahat kami ay

sumasahod sa pamamagitan ng Fastrust
Services, Inc. May nakatalang isang unit
leader at isang assistant unit leader sa aming
shift;
(9) Ang aming Unit Leader (Supervisor)
ay si G. Eric Golpe samantalang ang aming
Assistant Unit Leader ay si G. Billy Clave.
Silang dalawa ay pawang mga regular na
empleyado ng 2GO Express at direktang
sumasahod mula sa naturang kumpanya;

(10) Sina G. Golpe at G. Clave ang

nangangasiwa ng operasyon sa aming area.
Sila ang nagche-check ng aming attendance.
Sila din ang nagmamando sa aming mga
gawain at sumisiyasat kung ang aming
gawain ay naaayon sa procedures na itinakda
ng 2GO Express, hindi lamang sa kung paano
ang mga tungkulin namin ay dapat isagawa
ngunit pati na rin ma-kontrol kung tama ang
resulta ng aming mga gawain;
(11) Nagsimula ang aking kalbaryo bilang
isang manggagawa sa 2GO Express noong
buwan ng Marso 2015;
(12) Isang gabi ng buwan ng Marso 2015
ay may nawala daw na padalang gamit na
dapat sana ay ihahatid sa Tuguegarao City,
Cagayan. Ako ay pinagbintangan ni G. Eric
Golpe na kumuha ng nasabing gamit sa
kadahilanang ako daw ang unang nag-scan
(receiving) nito;
(13) Ang kanilang bintang ay walang
katotohanan dahil malinaw na ito ay na-scan
sa aking terminal;
6

(14) Sinasabi nila na ako daw ang last

touch
kung
kayat
nasa
akin
ang
responsibildad sa pagkawala nito;
(15) Hindi maaring sabihin na ako ang
last touch sa naturang gamit dahil ang
aking tungkulin noong gabi na diumanoy
nawala ito ay sa first scanning (receiving).
Gaya ng iba pang dokumento at gamit na
akin
na-receive
at
na-scan,
dumaan
kinalaunan ang naturang padala sa sorting;
(16) Pagkatapos kasi ng unang scan
(receiving) ay dadaan ang mga dokumento at
mga padalang gamit sa apat na sorting. Apat
na katao ang sumasagawa ng nasabing
sorting
para
sa
mga
kanya-kanyang
destinasyon: Big Ports (Cebu, Bacolod, Iloilo,
Cagayan de Oro at Davao,); VisMin (Naga,
Legazpi,
Masbate,
Occidental
Mindoro,
Tacloban, Roxas City, Kalibo, Boracay, Puerto
Princesa, Butuan, General Santos, Cotabato,
at Zamboanga City); North Luzon (Baliwag,
Dau,
Bataan,
Olongapo,
Gapan,
San
Fernando, La Union, Dagupan, Urdaneta,
Alaminos, Baguio, Cauayan, Tuguegarao,
Vigan, at Laoag); at South Luzon (Santa
Rosa, Santa Cruz, San Pablo, Dasmarias,
Imus, General Trias, Lipa, Batangas, Lucena,
Gumaca, Calapan, Pinamalayan at Roxas
[Mindoro];
(17) Noong araw na iyon ay hindi naman
ako ang nakatalaga upang mag-sort.
Pagkatapos ng sorting ay dadaan uli ang mga
dokumento at padalang gamit sa isa pang
scanning (loading) bago ito timbangin at
isakay sa mga trucks na magsasagawa ng
deliveries;
7

(18) Kung kayat ang pagbibintang ni G.

Eric Golpe ay isang malisyosong gawa dahil
kung susuriin ang pangyayari ay hindi
masasabi na ako ang may last touch ng
nawawalang gamit dahil ito ay dumaan pa sa
ibang kawani ng 2GO matapos na ito ay
aking mai-scan;
(19) Noong ika-18 ng Abril 2015 ay may
nawala na naman daw na gamit na
nakatakdang i-deliver sa Puerto Princesa,
Palawan. Ako na naman ang pinagbintangan
na kumuha kahit na wala silang mailatag na
ebidensiya laban sa akin. Ako daw ang last
touch dito dahil ako daw ang unang nagscan;
(20) Dahil sa pagkawala ng nasabing
gamit ako ay bigla na lamang pinauwi
habang naka-duty noong ika-25 ng Abril
2015. Ako daw ay suspended indefinitely;
(21) Ang pagpapauwi sa akin ay dahil na
rin sa utos ni G. Eric Golpe;
(22) Nais ko lamang idiin na walang
isinagawang pormal na imbestigasyon laban
sa akin dahil sa pagkakawala ng padalang
gamit noong ika-18 ng Abril 2015. Kahit sa
pagkakawala ng isang padalang gamit noong
Marso 2015 ay hindi sila nag-imbestiga laban
sa akin. Sa loob ng pamamahala ni G. Eric
Golpe sa aming area ay panay bintang,
pagmumura at pamemersonal ang ipinukol
niya laban sa akin at sa aking mga
kasamahan. Isa siyang abusadong lider na
walang pakundangan sa pamamaltrato sa
tulad naming mga maliliit na manggagawa;

(23) Ako ay bigla na lamang pinauwi na

walang
makatarungang
dahilan.
Kung
nanaisin lamang ng pamunuan ng 2GO
Express na magkaroon na masinsinang
imbestigasyon sa mga pangyayari ay
matutukoy
nila
ang
mismong
may
kagagawan sa pagkakawala ng mga padala
dahil ang aming area ay napapalibutan ng
mga CCTVs. Subalit, imbis na mag-imbestiga
sila ay ibinuhos na lamang nila ang bintang
laban sa akin kahit na wala akong kinalaman
sa naturang pagkawala ng mga padala;
(24) Noong ika-29 ng Abril 2015, ako ay
nagsadya sa tanggapan ng Fastrust Services,
Inc. upang alamin kung anong tulong ang
maibibigay nila sa akin ukol sa iligal na
indefinite suspension na ipinataw sa akin ni
G. Eric Golpe. Ang nakausap ko mismo ay ang
may-ari ng Fastrust Services, Inc. na si G.
Joseph Abasolo;
(25) Ako ay pinagawa nila ng isang
salaysay ng araw na iyon ukol sa mga
pangyayaring ibinibintang sa akin ng 2GO
Express partikular na ni G. Eric Golpe. Bukod
doon ay hindi na ako binigyan ng
kaseguruduhan ni G. Abasolo na makakabalik
sa 2GO Express. Bagkus ay sinabihan na lang
ako na ililipat sa ibang accounts nila.
Tatawagan na lamang daw nila ako;
(26) Hindi ko po talaga matanggap ang
sinapit kong ito. Sa kabila ng tapat at maayos
na panunungkulan ko sa kumpanya ay
naranasan ko ang hindi tamang pag-trato
mula sa aking mga amo. Pinagbintangan
nila ako sa mga pagnanakaw na hindi ko
naman ginawa. At masakit pa nito ay
isinailalim nila ako sa indefinite suspension
9

na walang matibay na basehan. Ang masakit

pa
nito
ay
sunod-sunod
ang
mga
pagbibintang sa akin ng mga pagkakamali na
hindi ko naman nagawa;
(27) Dahil
sa
aking
biglaang
pagkakatanggal sa trabaho, ako at ang aking
pamilya ay dumanas ng di-birong hirap dahil
ako ay lubos na inaasahan ng aking mga
anak;
(28) Hindi ako mapagkatulog, walang
ganang kumain, laging balisa, nakaranas ng
pagkapahiya, insulto at iba pa;
(29) Dahil sa aking hindi magandang
karanasan sa kamay ng pamunuan ng 2GO
Express at Fastrust Services, Inc., ako ay
napilitang magsampa ng kaso sa Department
of Labor National-Labor Relations Commission
(DOLE-NLRC) at kumuha ng abogado para
mahinusay at maayos kong malitis at
maipagtanggol ang aking sarili sa kasong ito;
(30) Ginawa ko ang Sinumpaang Salaysay
na ito para patunayan ang lahat na nakasaad
sa itaas.
BILANG PATOTOO, ay inilalagda ko sa
ibaba ang aking pangalan ngayong ika-23 ng
Hulyo 2015 dito sa Lungsod ng Quezon.
3.
Due to the failure of the parties to amicably
resolve their issues during the mandatory conference, the
parties are directed to submit their respective position
papers.
4.

Hence, this position paper.

ISSUES
10

I.
WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT IS A
REGULAR EMPLOYEE OF RESPONDENT
2GO EXPRESS.
II.

WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT WAS

ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.

III.

WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT WAS

DENIED DUE PROCESS.

IV.

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS ARE

LIABLE FOR ALL THE MONEY CLAIMS
HEREIN CLAIMED INCLUDING DAMAGES,
ATTORNEYS FEES, LITIGATION AND THE
LIKE EXPENSES AND THE COST OF SUIT.

DISCUSSION/ARGUMENTS

11

COMPLAINANT
EMPLOYEE OF
EXPRESS

IS
A
REGULAR
RESPONDENT 2GO

Complainant is a regular employee of 2GO Express. It

cannot be gainsaid that Complainant was recruited,
engaged, and assigned as a clerk/scanner/sorter in
Respondent 2GO Express, a courier solutions and express
delivery service provider, and was tasked to scan and sort
incoming and outgoing documents/items which are
processed for distribution and delivery to desired
destinations all over the Philippines. He is made to perform a
job which is usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of 2GO Express. Complainant has been
performing his assigned tasks continuously with 2GO
Express as early as 23 February 2007.

Article 280 of the Labor Code is very explicit, to wit:

Art.
280.
Regular
and
casual
employment. The provisions of written
agreement to the contrary notwithstanding
and regardless of the oral agreement of the
parties, an employment shall be deemed to
be regular where the employee has been
engaged to perform activities which are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer, except
where the employment has been fixed for a
specific
project
or
undertaking
the
completion or termination of which has been
determined at the time of the engagement of
the employee or where the work or service to
be performed is seasonal in nature and the
employment is for the duration of the season.

12

An employment shall be deemed to be

casual if it is not covered by the preceding
paragraph: Provided, that any employee who
has rendered at least one year of service,
whether such service is continuous or broken,
shall be considered a regular employee with
respect to the activity in which he is
employed and his employment shall continue
while such activity exists.

Hence, having been in the continuous employ of the

Respondent 2GO Express for more than eight (8) years, prior
to his illegal suspension and constructive dismissal,
Complainant, by the mandate of law, has already attained a
regular status in the company and, undoubtedly, must enjoy
his security of tenure.

COMPLAINANTS
CLEARLY ILLEGAL

DISMISSAL

IS

Complainant was illegally dismissed. Being a regular

employee as defined by Article 280 of the Labor Code, he
cannot be dismissed except for just or authorized causes
provided for by the Labor Code. Definitely, he cannot be
dismissed on the mere whims and caprices of the
Respondents as adverted to above. This is so plain to be
mistaken.
Complainant, in his Sinumpaang Salaysay, clearly
demonstrated that, prior to his filing of this instant case, he
had been the victim of discrimination, disdain and
insensibility perpetrated by his own unit leader, Respondent
Eric Golpe. The bullying behaviour of his superior did not
only harm him psychologically but it likewise inflicted, in
him, fear for his job security. This situation was in fact
exacerbated by the indefinite suspension meted on him by
Eric Golpe despite the absence of any valid ground that
justifies the same.

13

Complainant did not deliberately intend to quit his job

but was constrained to do so. However, considering that he
was already being pestered by unfounded and baseless
accusations and charges initiated by Eric Golpe, he had no
choice but to forego the employment he endears. Worse,
while he was trying to keep his job and defend himself from
unwarranted imputations against him, he was never given
the opportunity to explain his side thoroughly but, instead,
was served with suspension orders for offenses he did not
commit.
It is settled that constructive dismissal exists where
there is cessation of work because "continued employment
is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer
involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay and
other benefits. Aptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act
amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not,
constructive dismissal may, likewise, exist if an act of clear
discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer
becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it
could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his
continued employment.
COMPLAINANT
PROCESS.

WAS

DENIED

DUE

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Respondents

have grounds to suspend indefinitely the Complainant, still,
Complainant was denied due process. He was just instantly
and summarily suspended indefinitely right then and there.
He was not even afforded his right to explain and defend his
side against any charges hurled against him. In fact, he was
just plainly been forced to leave his job. This is a classic
example of an exceedingly brutal denial of due process. The
facts are so weighty to be overlooked.
As can be clearly deduced from Complainants
Sinumpaang Salaysay, Respondents did not even properly
charge him for any violation of a particular company rule or
regulation. Respondents did not conduct a single hearing so
that the Complainant could defend himself or air his side on
the charges the former are imputing against him.

14

The Court, in Alert Security and Investigation

Agency vs. Pasawilan et. Al. G.R. No. 182397,
September 14, 2011, categorically pronounced:
As a rule, employment cannot be
terminated by an employer without any just
or authorized cause. No less than the 1987
Constitution in
Section
3,
Article
13
guarantees security of tenure for workers and
because of this, an employee may only be
terminated for just or authorized causes that
must comply with
the due process
requirements mandated by
law.
Hence,
employers are barred from arbitrarily
removing their workers whenever and
however they want. The law sets the valid
grounds for termination as well as the proper
procedure to take when terminating the
services of an employee.
In De Guzman, Jr. v. Commission on
Elections, the Court, speaking of the
Constitutional guarantee of security of tenure
to all workers, ruled:
x x x It only means that an employee
cannot be dismissed (or transferred) from the
service for causes other than those provided
by law and after due process is accorded the
employee. What it seeks to prevent is
capricious exercise of the power to
dismiss. x x x
Although we recognize the right of
employers to shape their own work force, this
management prerogative must not curtail the
basic right of employees to security of
tenure. There must be a valid and lawful
reason for terminating the employment of a
worker. Otherwise, it is illegal and would be
dealt with by the courts accordingly.
As stated in Bascon v. Court of Appeals:

15

x x x The employers power to dismiss

must be tempered with the employees right
to security of tenure. Time and again we
have said that the preservation of the
lifeblood of the toiling laborer comes before
concern for business profits. Employers must
be reminded to exercise the power to dismiss
with great caution, for the State will not
hesitate to come to the succor of workers
wrongly dismissed by capricious employers.
(Emphasis Supplied).
COMPLAINANT
IS
CLEARLY
ENTITLED TO ALL THE MONEY
CLAIMS
HEREIN
CLAIMED
INCLUDING DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS
FEES, LITIGATION AND THE LIKE
EXPENSES INCLUDING COST OF THE
SUIT.

A simple perusal of the Complaint and the Sinumpaang

Salaysay of herein Complainant reveals that Respondents
have violated different labor standard laws. Considering that
the Complainant is seeking herein the satisfaction of simple
money claims, Respondents are obligated to submit proofs of
payment of such claims. Otherwise, as a consequence of
Respondents failure to present or submit proofs of payment,
Complainants claim of underpayment of money due him will
become unquestionable.

Besides, in this jurisdiction, it is settled that, in cases of

money claims asserted by its employees, the burden of proof
is shifted to the employer, bearing in mind that it possesses
all the necessary pieces of evidence to prove payment of
such claims. What is required of the complainant-employee
is merely the execution of a sworn affidavit attesting to the
non-payment of the same. With the submission of herein
Complainants affidavit, he has more than complied of what
is expected of him.
16

As a proximate result of Respondents unlawful acts as

clearly adverted to above, Complainant suffered untold
miseries brought about by the sudden deprivation of his only
means of livelihood.
He, being the bread winner of his
family, was unceremoniously left without a source of income.
He was thrown out of the job he faithfully performed for
years because Respondents felt so powerful that they could
just, at anytime, undermine Complainants security of
tenure.
All the illegal and improvident acts of the Respondents
discussed above, which are part and parcel of their
malevolent and anti-workers inclination and attitudes, were
motivated by ill-will and illicit intentions and committed with
wilful and evident bad faith.
Verily, the Complainant is entitled to moral damages as
provided for under Articles 2217 and 2219 in relation to
Article 21 and paragraph 6 of Article 32 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines.
The foregoing provisions read as follows:
Article 2217. Moral damages include
physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, and similar injury. Though
incapable of pecuniary computation, moral
damages may be recovered if they are the
proximate result of the defendants wrongful
act or omission. (Emphasis supplied).
Article 2219. Moral damages may be
recovered in the following and analogous
cases:
xxx
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles
21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35.
Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes
loss or injury to another in a manner that is
17

contrary to morals, good customs or public

policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage.
Article 32. Any public officer or employee,
or any private individual, who directly or
indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in
any manner impedes or impairs any of the
following rights and liberties of another
person shall be liable to the latter for
damages:
xxx
(6) The right against deprivation
property without due process of law.

of

Since it is clear that the Complainant is entitled to

moral damages, perforce, he is likewise entitled to
exemplary damages, pursuant to Article 2229 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines which provides:
Article 2229.
Exemplary or corrective
damages are imposed, by way of example or
correction for the public good, in addition to
the
moral,
temperate,
liquidated
or
compensatory damages.
The award of moral and exemplary damages is proper
when an illegally dismissed employee had been harassed
and arbitrarily terminated by the employer, as when the
latter committed an anti-social and oppressive abuse of its
right to investigate and dismiss an employee. (Sagum vs.
CA, G.R. No. 158759, May 26, 2005).
Complainant was dismissed from his job out of mere
whims and caprices of herein Respondents. Such
Respondents actuation, without a doubt, is done in bad
faith. Out of necessity, therefore, Respondents must pay
herein Complainant moral and exemplary damages as
rightful compensations for the sufferings he does not
deserve.

18

Finally, having been compelled to engage the services

of a counsel to vindicate his rights, Complainant is further
entitled to attorneys fees equivalent to ten (10) percent of
the total judgment amount that may be awarded herein. As
the Supreme Court held in Philippine National
Construction Corporation vs. NLRC, 277 SCRA 91:
It is settled that in actions for recovery of
wages or where an employee was forced to
litigate and, thus, incur expenses to protect
his rights and interests, the award of
attorneys fees is legally and morally
justifiable.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most
respectfully prayed for that after due consideration, a
DECISION BE RENDERED in favor of the Complainant as
follows:
1.
DECLARING Complainant
EMPLOYEE of 2GO Express;

as

REGULAR

2.
DECLARING
Complainant
to
have
been
CONSTRUCTIVELY DISMISSED and was DENIED DUE
PROCESS when he was placed on indefinite suspension;
3.
DIRECTING
Respondents
to
immediately
REINSTATE the Complainant to his former position without
loss of seniority rights and other privileges under the law and
the payment of his FULL BACKWAGES , inclusive of
allowances, and to other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time his compensation was
withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement;
4.
HOLDING Respondents SOLIDARILY LIABLE for
other monetary claims herein demanded as well as
DAMAGES in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
(P100,000.00)
PESOS as moral damages and TWO
HUNDRED
THOUSAND
(P200,000.00)
PESOS
as
exemplary damages; and

19

5. DECLARING Respondents SOLIDARILY LIABLE to

reimburse Complainant all his litigation and other related
expenses, including attorneys fees equivalent to ten (10%)
percent of the total monetary award.
OTHER RELIEFS deemed just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.
Quezon City, 23 July 2015.

LAWIN
(Legal Advocates for Workers INterest)
Counsel for the Complainant
Room 206, Jiao Building
2 Timog Avenue, Quezon City
Email address: lawin2setufree@yahoo.com
Telefax (02) 373-18-44

ERNESTO R. ARELLANO
PTR No. 0560896; 01-05-15; Q.C.
IBP No. 0981335; 01-05-15; CALMANA
ROLL No. 22660
MCLE No. IV-0017780; 22 April 2013

JASPER C. BALBOA
PTR No. 0595301; 01-06-15; Q.C.
IBP No. 0982982; 01-06-15; MANILA I
ROLL No. 63288
MCLE Compliance until April 14, 2016
Admitted to the Bar on 07 May 2014

Copy furnished: by hand and during hearing

20

(1) 2GO EXPRESS, SULPICIO

TAGUD, BING
ARROYO
and
ERIC GOLPE
Respondents
Durian Park, Domestic Road,
Pasay City
(2)

FASTRUST SERVICES, INC.,

JOSEPH
ABASOLO
and
EMMA
ABASOLO
Respondents
611 Espiritu Street, Cabrera,
Pasay City 1300
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM
SHOPPING
I, GEORGE B. REYES, of legal age, married, Filipino,
and a resident of 164 Prudencio Street, Sampaloc, Manila,
after being duly sworn, depose and say:
1.

That I am the Complainant in the above-entitled case; I

have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing
Position Paper; I have read the contents of the same; and
that I affirm them as true and correct to the best of my own
personal knowledge and based on authentic records;

2.

That I have not commenced any other action or

proceeding involving the same issue in the Court of Appeals,
Supreme Court or its different divisions, or any tribunal or
agency and that to the best of my own knowledge, no such
action or proceeding is pending in any of the Courts or
agencies mentioned;

3.

That if I should thereafter learn that a similar action or

proceeding has been filed or pending before the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency,
I will undertake to report the fact within five (5) days
therefrom to this Honorable Court or agency wherein the
original pleading and sworn certification contemplated
herein has been filed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affixed my own
signature this 23rd day of July 2015 here in Quezon City.

21

GEORGE B. REYES
Affiant
S.S.S I.D. No. 33-1454006-2
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd
day of July 2015 here in Quezon City. Affiant exhibited to me
his government-issued I.D. with the number indicated above
for the purpose of establishing his personal identity.
Doc. No. _____;
Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2015.

22