Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGIONS

Metropolitan Trial Court
Branch 23, Manila

Rodel
Petitioner,

- versus - Civil Case No. ______________

Raquel
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

RESPONDENTS POSITION PAPER

RESPONDENT unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submit

this position Paper, and state:

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Raquel hired Rodel, a skilled carpenter to make repair of her leaking

room. She told Rodel to replace the rusted sheets, giving instructions that
she want the best materials to be used and paint it with bright colours. She
wanted Rodel to do repairs while she is in vacation in Baguio from Monday
to Friday. She gave Rodel Php 10,000.00 to buy the needed materials.
Two days later, while in her vacation, Raquel received a call from her
housemaid saying that Rodel bought second hand materials and pocketed
the rest of the amount she gave to Rodel. Raquel instructed her maid to
give the cell phone to Rodel and over the cell phone, she told Rodel that
he was fired and must return all the money, otherwise, she will file a case
against him. Rodel filed a complaint for illegal dismissal , non-payment of
wages, damages and attorneys fee before the Labor Arbiter

ISSUES

WHETHER OR NOT THE DISMISSAL OF RODEL IS ILLEGAL.

DISCUSSIONS

DISMISSAL IS VALID

An equality of rights exists between the employer and the employee. While
the former cannot force the latter to work against his will, neither can the
employee compel the employer to let him continue to work if there is no
lawful reason to do so. Thus, the employer may terminate the services of
an employee for just or authorized causes after following the provisions
laid down by law.

In that light, Just causes are blameworthy acts on the part of the employee
such as serious misconduct, wilful disobedience, gross and habitual
neglect of duties, fraud or wilful breach of trust, commission of a crime, and
other analogous cases as was provided by Art. 282 of the Labor Code.
Just cause refers to a wrong doing committed by the employer or
employee on the basis of which the aggrieved party may terminate the
employer-employee relationship.
In the present case, it is clear that Rodel did wilfully, maliciously and in
dishonesty committed fraud or breach of trust, wilful disobedience, and
serious misconduct towards his employer, who has given him her trust and
confidence that he will do the job professionally and as instructed by
Raquel.

Citing the case of Weslayan University Philippines v. Nowella Reyes,

respondents dismissal was for a just cause, based on a wilful breach of
trust and founded on clearly established facts as required by
jurisprudence. A company has the right to dismiss its employees if only as
a measure of self-protection. (WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY PHILIPPINES v.
NOWELLA REYES, G.R. No. 208321, July 30, 2014)

It would be oppressive to require the petitioner to retain his job who has
admitted to knowingly and intentionally committing acts which jeopardized
Raquels finances and who was untrustworthy in the handling of money
and petitioners lack of honesty and integrity in his profession.

Furthermore, loss of trust and confidence is a just cause for dismissal

under Art. 282(c) of the Labor Code. It provides that an employer may
terminate an employment for fraud or willful breach by the employee of
the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative.
However, in order for the employer to properly invoke this ground, the
employer must satisfy two conditions. First, the employer must show that
the employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence. Second,
the employer must establish the existence of an act justifying the loss of
trust and confidence. To be a valid cause for dismissal, the act that betrays
the employers trust must be real, i.e., founded on clearly established facts,
and the employees breach of the trust must be willful, i.e., it was done
intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse. (Baguio
Central University v. Ignacio Gallente, G.R. No. 188267, December 2,
2013.) Which on the present case, both are present as Rodel holds a
position of trust and confidence that he will do his job as instructed and
professionally, and Rodel betrayed his employers trust by buying second
hand sheets, rather than buying a new one as instructed by Raquel to him.

In view of the petitioners due process, respondent had complied with it as

clearly shown by the facts. Theft committed by an employee is a valid
reason for his dismissal by the employer. Although as a rule, the Court
leans over backwards to help workers and employees continue their
employment or to mitigate the penalities imposed on them, acts of
dishonesty in the handling of respondents income, are a different manner.
(Maribago Bluewater Beach Resort Inc. v. Nito Dual, G.R. No. 180660, July
20, 2010)

In support to that, the due process requirement is met when there is simply
an opportunity to be head and to explain ones side even if no hearing is
conducted. (Flordeliza Maria Reyes-Rayel vs. Philippine Luen Thai
Holdings Corporation, et al. G.R. No. 174893, July 11, 2012.) In the
present case, Rodel had an opportunity to talk to Raquel, even if indirectly
through a cell phone, still Rodel and Raquel was able to talk to each other
and he had a right to be heard by his employer.

In the foregoing facts, with Raquels action to talk to Rodel even through a
cell phone, Rodel was given an opportunity to be heard and to explain
himself for the acts done by him. And the just cause for Rodels termination

2
was a valid dismissal because of his acts of fraud and the Respondents
loss of trust and confidence.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully moved that the

complaint for illegal dismissal of the petitioner be dismissed for lack of
ground or merit.

Quezon City for Manila, December 17, 2016.

Atty. JERWEL ADRIAN C. DE PERIO

Counsel for Respondent
Unit 718 Prima Residences Condominium
Quezon Avenue
1118 Quezon City, Philippines

EXPLANATION

A copy of this position paper is being furnished to plaintiffs counsel

not by personal service but by registered mail due to time constraint.

JERWEL ADRIAN C. DE PERIO

3
 VERIFICATION

I, RAQUEL, of legal age and Filipino, after having been duly sworn
to in accordance with law, depose and state THAT:

I am of the respondent in the above entitled case; I have caused the

preparation of the foregoing document and I have read the same and the
contents of which are true and correct of my own knowledge and/or on the
basis of authentic documents.

AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

In witness whereof, I hereunto affix my signature this December 17,

2016.

RAQUEL
Respondent

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

MANILA )SS.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this December 17, 2016;

affaint exhibiting to me her TIN I.D. No. _____________________.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this December 17, 2016.

DOC. NO._______
PAGE NO._______ NOTARY PUBLIC
BOOK NO._______
SERIES OF 201_.

Copy furnished by registered mail

Registry Receipt No.__________
Quezon City Post Office
Date: December 10, 2016.

Atty. JERWEL ADRIAN C. DE PERIO

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Unit 718 Prima Residences Condominium
Quezon Avenue
1118 Quezon City, Philippines