Republic of the Philippines
Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISION
Regional Arbitration Branch
Cordillera Administrative Region
2F Manongdo Bldg., Private Road
Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio City
MATT ALINO
Complainant,
NLRC CASE NO. RAB-CAR-19-41
- Versus –
For
ALPHA CENTUARI UNIVERSITY Illegal Dismissal
Respondent,
X-----------------------------------------------X
COMES NOW the Complainant, through the undersigned
counsel, unto the Honorable Labor Arbiter, most respectfully submits
this Position Paper, thus:
THE PARTIES
The Complainant in this case is Mr. Matt Alino, of legal age,
married, with residence and postal address at No. 21 Evangelista
Street, Aurora Hill, Baguio City, where he may be served with
processes of this Court.
The Respondent Alpha Centuari University is a private
educational institution established and organized under the laws of
the Republic of the Philippines, holding its business at #118 Lower
Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio City, where it could likewise be served
by this Honorable Court of all its summons and legal processes.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Complainant Matt Alino was hired by the respondent Alpha
Centuari University on October 7, 2009 and that he has been teaching
for almost a decade in the College of Accountancy. He has been
awarded twice as “Best Faculty Teacher” since he started teaching;
Upon the start of School Year 2018-2019, he was given a Notice
for Promotion as a Department Head of College of Accountancy;
During the first semester of 2018-2019, he was given a load of 12
units for various subjects in the College of Accountancy and
submitted a syllabus for those subjects which was duly approved by
the Dean of the College. Under his Financial Accounting subject,
some of his students have a failing final grade based on the
computation;
Before the final computation of their final grades, students who
have a failing grade in the final examination were given a second
chance to take another examination and others who failed due to
failure of submission of projects and missed activities were given a
chance to comply with their deficiencies;
One of the activities given by the complainant is an individual
reaction paper on a video material regarding “How to become a
CPA” by one of the most distinguished reviewer in such field. The
students were required to buy the said video material and somehow
the complainant suggested to his students that after watching the
video, they may want it to donate to the library so that other students
can probably use it as a reference in the future;
It has come to the complainant’s knowledge that his students
contributed in the amount of Php 100.00 each to purchase the video
material and those who did not contribute were not allowed by their
classmates to watch the video, hence no reaction papers were
submitted that caused them to have a failing grade. The complainant
advised those students who failed due to non-compliance to pay their
contribution to their classmates so they can borrow and watch the
video material;
After the re-examination and compliance of the students who
failed, eventually they got a passing grade;
A week after the re-examination, the complainant was stunned
when he received a notice requiring him to explain regarding the
complaints of some of his students;
However, on June 2, 2019, he was even more shocked when he
was told verbally by the Dean that he has been dismissed from his
work effective immediately due to the alleged selling or peddling
grades and tardiness;
That the true facts of the incident was as above-narrated;
Considering the foregoing circumstances, no settlement
between parties was arrived at during the Single Entry Approach
proceedings, thus the filing of herein Position Paper;
ISSUES
I. Whether or not the complainant is illegally dismissed.
II. Whether or not the complainant is entitled to the reliefs
prayed for in this complaint on the ground of illegal
dismissal, that is, reinstatement, back wages, damages and
attorney’s fees.
ARGUMENTS and PROVISIONS OF LAW
Alleged selling or peddling grades
There was no substantial proof during the investigation of the
fact finding committee that the giving of passing grades was done
with malice or immoral considerations. The complainant was illegally
dismissed for choosing to be a considerate mentor to his students.
The projects and activities given by the complainant to his students
was approved by the Dean through the submitted syllabus by the
complainant at the start of the semester. The abrupt dismissal of the
complainant should not be visited with a consequence so severe.
Indeed, the penalty of dismissal is unduly harsh considering that the
complainant had been in the employ of the respondent school for ten
years and in fact he has been awarded twice as a “Best Faculty
Teacher” in the years 2012 and 2015 as herein attached as “Annex A.1
and A.2 respectively. The law regards the workers with compassion.
Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows upon those
dependent on the wage-earner.
In order to constitute serious misconduct which will warrant
the dismissal of an employee under paragraph (a) of Article 282 of
the Labor Code, it is not sufficient that the act or conduct complained
of has violated some established rules or policies. It is equally
important and required that the act or conduct must have been
performed with wrongful intent.
There is no evidence to show that there was ulterior motive on
the part of the complainant when he decided to pass his students.
Also, it was not shown that complainant received immoral
consideration when he did the same. From the fact finding committee
up to this Court, complainant has maintained his stand that his
decision to pass the concerned students was done out of
humanitarian consideration.
Tardiness and early class dismissal
As shown in the Summary Report of Absences, dated March 20,
2019, issued by the Univeristy Internal Auditor, Macky K. Itak, the
complainant was allegedly tardy for a total of 437 minutes and was
absent for 18 hours with a sick leave equivalent to 10 hours and had
early dismissals totalling to 35 minutes for his entire teaching services
in the school. The penalty of dismissal due to his tardiness is unduly
harsh and severe considering that the complainant had been in the
employ of the respondent school for ten years. This summarized
report with regards to his Sick Leaves has been duly approved as
herein attached as an “Annex B”. That this early dismissals were
done after a thorough discussion of his class. That even if he
sometimes he had an early dismissal, this does not mean that he leave
the school premises imeediately, in fact he stayed in the school longer
than the required hours for some faculty works like the checking of
the student's test papers and others.
To his recollection, the penalty of Corrective Counselling (CC)
was imposed on him one time for his tardiness and absences. He does
not recall having issued a memorandum of WARNING. The
complainant assumes that it was a Corrective Counselling penalty.
Some, if not many, of the tardiness of the complainant were
caused by the heavy traffic due to the prolonged construction and/or
improvement of the street where the Alpha Centuari University was
located with cranes and heavy equipment on the road and due to the
influx of tourists enjoying the holiday from the 31 st Asean Summit in
Metro Manila.
For the abscences and sick leaves, these were within the
allowable privilege given to a common employee in the a private
setting. More especially that these leaves were duly approved after
filing the same to the Human Resource Department as herein
attached as Annex “C.1 C.2 and so on”.
The complainant was abruptly and ILLEGALLY DIMISSED on June
2, 2019.
On June 2, 2019 at about 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM, the
complainant was abruptly and verbally dismissed from employment
by the respondent Alpha Centuari University through the Dean
Annie Ng-Ata in the presence of his department head and co-faculty
members inside the office of College of Accountancy. In termination
proceedings of employees, procedural due process consists of the
twin requirements of notice and hearing. The employer must furnish
the employee with two written notices before the termination of
employment can be effected: (1) the first apprises the employee of the
particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2)
the second informs the employee of the employer’s decision to
dismiss him. In the case of the complainant, the second requirement
was not met because there was no notice given to him to inform him
regarding his dismissal. Therefore, procedural due process for
termination of an employee has been denied to the complainant.
Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of
tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except for a
just and authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement
of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish
the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written
notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall
afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself
with the assistance of his representative if he so desires in accordance
with company rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to
guidelines set by the Department of Labor and Employment.
Any decision taken by the employer shall be without prejudice
to the right of the worker to contest the validity or legality of his
dismissal by filing a complaint with the regional branch of the
National Labor Relations Commission. The burden of proving that
the termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the
employer.
The Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment
may suspend the effects of the termination pending resolution of the
dispute in the event of a prima facie finding by the appropriate
official of the Department of Labor and Employment before whom
such dispute is pending that the termination may cause a serious
labor dispute or is in implementation of a mass lay-off.(As amended by
Section 33, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
Article 279 of the Code provides for the SECURITY OF TENURE of a
worker:
ART. 279. Security of tenure.- In cases of regular employment, the
employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a
just cause or when authorized by this Title.
An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be
entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other
privileges and to his full back wages, inclusive of allowances, and to
his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the
time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his
actual reinstatement. (As amended by Section 34, Republic Act No.
6715, March 21, 1989).
Article 282 of the Code speaks of the just grounds to dismiss an
employee.
ART. 282. Termination by employer. - An employer may terminate an
employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful
orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his
employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his
employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized
representatives; and
The complainant is guilty merely of the MINOR OFFENSE
He is not guilty of Serious Misconduct, Gross and Habitual
Neglect, Fraud or Willful Breach of Trust, or Commission of a Cirme
against the employer or his family or representatives.
He does not deserve the supreme sanction of dismissal more so
without due process of law.
In the case of CAPIN-CADIZ VS. BRENT HOSPITAL AND
COLLEGE, GR 187417, February 24, 2016, it was held that a worker
who was illegally dismissed is entitled to “entitled to reinstatement
without loss of seniority rights, and with payment of back wages
computed from the time compensation was withheld up to the date
of actual reinstatement.”
Given the foregoing, Cadiz, therefore, is entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and payment of back
wages computed from the time compensation was withheld up to the
date of actual reinstatement.
Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option,
separation pay should be awarded as an alternative and as a form of
financial assistance.
Generally, the computation of back wages is reckoned from the
date of illegal dismissal until actual reinstatement.
In case separation pay is ordered in lieu of reinstatement or
reinstatement is waived by the employee, back wages is computed
from the time of dismissal until the finality of the decision ordering
separation pay.
Jurisprudence further clarified that the period for computing
the back wages during the period of appeal should end on the date
that a higher court reversed the labor arbitration ruling of illegal
dismissal.
In the case of NEW PUERTO COMMERCIAL, ET. AL. VS.
LOPEZ, ET. AL., GR NO. 1699999, JULY 26, 2010, discussed DUE
PROCESS OF LAW in labor cases.
In order to validly dismiss an employee, he must be accorded
both substantive and procedural due process by the employer.
Procedural due process requires that the employee be given a notice
of the charge against him, an ample opportunity to be heard, and a
notice of termination. Even if the aforesaid procedure is conducted
after the filing of the illegal dismissal case, the legality of the
dismissal, as to its procedural aspect, will be upheld provided that
the employer is able to show that compliance with these
requirements was not a mere afterthought.
In termination proceedings of employees, procedural due
process consists of the twin requirements of notice and hearing. The
employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before
the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first apprises
the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his
dismissal is sought; and (2) the second informs the employee of the
employer’s decision to dismiss him. The requirement of a hearing is
complied with as long as there was an opportunity to be heard, and
not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted. As we
explained in Perez v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company.
An employee’s right to be heard in termination cases under
Article 277 (b) as implemented by Section 2 (d), Rule I of the
Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code should be
interpreted in broad strokes. It is satisfied not only by a formal face to
face confrontation but by any meaningful opportunity to controvert
the charges against him and to submit evidence in support thereof.
A hearing means that a party should be given a chance to
adduce his evidence to support his side of the case and that the
evidence should be taken into account in the adjudication of the
controversy.
CONCLUSION
The complainant is entitled to reinstatement and his back
wages from the date of his illegal dismissal on June 2, 2019 up to the
time he will be reinstated to his former position without loss of
seniority and other benefits;
As and by way of indemnity for his hurt feelings. Besmirched
reputation because he was illegally dismissed in front of his
department head and co-faculty members which caused him
depression and sleepless nights, he is entitled to moral damages in
the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP 100,000.00);
To serve as a lesson for the respondent as well as others of
similar inclination not to do the same, complainant is entitled to
exemplary damages in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(PHP 100,000.00);
Considering that the complainant engaged the services of his
counsel to prosecute this case, he is entitled to attorney’s fee in the
amount of Ten percent ( 10% ) of the total monetary award above
stated.
WHEREFORE, all premises duly considered, the complainant,
through counsel respectfully submits his
He was merely given a slap on a wrist as a penalty which means a
punishment or warning that is not very severe.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed
that judgment be issued declaring that the complainant has been
ILLEGALLY DISMISSED by the respondents.
FURTHER, it is respectfully prayed that the respondents be
ordered to pay or issue to the complainant, as the case may be:
a. BACKWAGES from the date of his illegal dismissal on June
2, 2019 up to the time he is REINSTATED to his former
position without loss of seniority and other benefits.
b. MORAL DAMAGES of Php 100,000.00.
c. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES of Php 100,000.00.
d. Attorney’s fees of ten percent ( 10% ) of Damages
AWARDED.
e. His CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYMENT whether or not he is
reinstated.
FINALLY, the complainant respectfully prays for such and
other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the
premises.
City of Baguio, October 26, 2019.
ATTY. WINCY MAE R. LEYSON
Counsel for the Complainant
Attorney’s Roll No. 68143
PTR No. 3281994 | 1-8-2019 |Baguio City
IBP No. 87969 |1-8-2019 | Baguio City
MCLE Compliance III No. 0018888
3rd Floor, Puso ng Baguio Building, Session Road,
Baguio City, 2600
[email protected]
(074) 44 –8625
Republic of the Philippines)
Done: In the City of Baguio)
X-----------------------------------X
VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION
I, MATT ALINO, the complainant in the above entitled
case;
That I have caused the preparation of this Position Paper,
and that the contents thereof are true and correct in accordance
to my personal knowledge and belief;
That I have no commenced any other action involving the
same issues and parties in any court, the Supreme Court or any
other forum or quasi-judicial bodies;
That there are no pending cases of similar nature before
any court or other agencies;
That should there be cases that shall be filed with other
courts, I shall undertake to personally inform the Court
wherein the Petition had been filed.
That I am executing this affidavit in compliance with Sec.
5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines.
MATT ALINO
SSS ID No. 14344 |1-19-2008 | Baguio City
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on the date and place
indicated herein, by the affiant who is personally known to me after
he presented his identification card indicated below his printed name
and signature as above-written.
City of Baguio, October 26, 2019.
ATTY. JESSA REEN PUCAN – BONILLA
Notary Public
Attorney’s Roll No. 68567
PTR No. 3673454 | 1-14-2019 |Baguio City
IBP No. 87089 |1-14-2019 | Baguio City
MCLE Compliance III No. 0018765
3rd Floor, Puso ng Baguio Building, Session Road,
Baguio City, 2600
To the Labor Arbitration Associate
NLRC, RAB- CAR
KINDLY submit the foregoing Position Paper of the
Complainant to the Honorable Labor Arbiter for his favorable
consideration.
City of Baguio, October 26, 2019.
ATTY. WINCY MAE R. LEYSON
Counsel for the Complainant
Copy furnished to the respondent through personal service.
