REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch III
San Fernando City, Pampanga

HON. MA. CRISTINA L. CAMUA – DE GUZMAN

Labor Arbiter

MOHAMMAD AJAY JAIYAN

MAJAN,
Complainant,

-versus- NLRC RAB CASE NO. RABIII-02-

00021-25

PRIMO SHIELD SECURITY

AND INVESTIGATION, INC.,
JONATHAN Q. MOLINA
Respondent(s).
x-----------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO ADMIT REPLY

with MANIFESTATION

The Respondent(s), PRIMO SHIELD SECURITY AND

INVESTIGATION, INC., JONATHAN Q. MOLINA, through
the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Office,
most respectfully move for the admission of their Reply to
the Position Paper of Complainants, alleging the following:

1. On June 19, 2025, the Respondents secured the

services of the undersigned as their counsel-on-retainer
and consulted about the above-captioned case stating
that they only received the corresponding Summons
and Position Paper of the Complainant in relation
thereto on June 18, 2025.

2. On June 24, 2025, the undersigned counsel proceeded

to this Honorable Office to file his Entry of Appearance
and to verify the veracity of the Respondents’ concern.
Apparently, the records show that the Summons and
Order to File Position Paper were received by a certain
Security Guard of the compound wherein the principal
office of the Respondents is currently established.
However, the Respondents deny that they have
received the same since the authorized representatives
of the compound in which they occupy an office space
 on lease did not notify them on the existence of the
received communications.

3. Thus, to properly plead in this case, the Respondent(s)

hereby pray for the Honorable Labor Arbiter’s leave to
admit their Reply to the Position Paper of Complainant
in the interest of substantial justice.

4. The Respondent(s) hereby commit that they shall

comply with further orders that the Honorable Labor
Arbiter would deem proper, if any.

5. The rights of the parties to this case will not be

prejudiced by this motion. This motion is not intended
to delay resolution of this case but only to afford
respondents their rightful opportunity to be heard.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the

Respondent(s)’ REPLY TO THE POSITION PAPER OF
COMPLAINANTS be admitted into the case records.

Other reliefs and remedies just and equitable under the

premises are likewise prayed for.

General Trias, Cavite, for San Fernando City,

Pampanga, Philippines, July 4, 2025.

KEVIN G. PEREZ
Counsel for the Respondents
Blk. 27 Lot 24, Chloe St., Elliston Place
Brgy. Pasong Camachile II, Gen. Trias, Cavite
#09186902421; mail.kevin_perez@[Link]
PTR No. GT 0769249; 2/13/25; General Trias, Cavite
IBP O.R. No. 507891; 1/14/25
Roll of Attorneys No. 86951
MCLE Compliance No. VIII-0011173,
issued on July 29, 2024 & valid until April 24, 2028

Copy Furnished:

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Guagua Pampanga District Office
Units B & C JohnCor Residences
JASA, San Jose, Guagua, Pampanga
Counsel for the Complainants
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
 Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch III
San Fernando City, Pampanga

HON. MA. CRISTINA L. CAMUA – DE GUZMAN

Labor Arbiter

MOHAMMAD AJAY JAIYAN

MAJAN,
Complainant,

-versus- NLRC RAB CASE NO. RABIII-02-

00021-25

PRIMO SHIELD SECURITY

AND INVESTIGATION, INC.,
JONATHAN Q. MOLINA
Respondent(s).
x-----------------------------------------------x

REPLY TO THE POSITION PAPER OF COMPLAINANT

with a
REQUEST FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA DUCES
TECUM AGAINST THE COMPLAINANT

The Respondent(s), PRIMO SHIELD SECURITY

AND INVESTIGATION, INC., JONATHAN Q. MOLINA,
through the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable
Office, most respectfully move for the admission of their
Reply to the Position Paper of Complainants, alleging the
following:

MOTION / REQUEST FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA

DUCES TECUM AGAINST COMPLAINANT

1. Whereas the Respondents would like to inform this

court that contrary to Complainant’s Verification and
Certification that the contents of his position paper are
true and correct according to his personal knowledge,
and based on authentic records, the following
documents attached in the Position Paper of
Complainant are fabricated, to wit:

a. Annex “C” to “C-1” – for the reason that

Complainant was initially employed as a
Probationary Employee for a period of six months
 only on January 5, 2024 up to June 5, 2024,
conditioned upon the approval of his application
for a License to Exercise Security Profession; and,

b. Annex “E” – for the reason that it is not a

PAYSLIP but a PAYROLL which is being presented
by the Complainant - which does not reflect the
name of the Respondents and its authorized
representatives considering that it is supposed to
be an official document issued by the latter in
comparison with the herein attached Annex “6”.
Moreover, a close perusal of the said Annex “E”
shows that Complainant’s Middle Initial is “M”
whereas his full name is MOHAMMAD AJAY JAIYAN
MAJAN. Lastly, the herein attached Annex “5”
shows that Ms. Jesusa O. Alcantara, Accounting
and Finance Officer of Respondents denies under
oath that the said document did not originate from
their official payroll system as it was never issued
by the Respondents.

2. Whereas the foregoing is bolstered by the fact that per

Annex “A” of Complainant’s Position Paper, the
Philippine National Police only issued him a License to
Exercise Security Profession on August 9, 2024 which is
expiring on August 9, 2029, that is why Complainant
was only employed as a Probationary Employee of
Respondents on January, 2024 up to June, 2024,
conditioned upon the approval of his application for
License.

3. Whereas the foregoing is further bolstered by the fact

that per Annex “D” to “D-1” of Complainant’s Position
Paper, the Operations Manager of Respondents is Mr.
Jonathan Q. Molina and not a certain Mr. Datu Ara
Waleed / Alfredo R. Agcaoili which shown in Annex “C”
to “C-1” of Complainant’s Position Paper – in fact, there
were two names bore in the said Annex C to C-1 where
in fact there only a single signature appearing thereon.
Laslty, in Comparison to Annex “D”, the said Annex “C”
contained a seemingly lesser number code which
format is unusually different than that of Annex “D”.
4. Whereas the foregoing is further bolstered by the fact
that per Annex “I” of Complainant’s Position Paper, the
Employer/Address Entry of the PhilHealth Member
Contribution Certification presented by the Complainant
only shows that Primo Shield Security and Investigation,
Inc. only started to appear as his employer on January,
2024.

5. Whereas the Respondents foremost request for the

issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum to require the
respondent(s) to produce the following: 1.) the
original and complete pages of Annex “C” to “C-
1” the Duty Detail Order No. 2023-07-121 dated
July 1, 2023 that Complainant possessed; and, 2.)
the original and complete pages of Annex “E” the
Payroll for June 1-15, 2023 that Complainant
possessed.

6. Whereas Rule V Section 13 of the 2011 NLRC Rules of

Procedure provides that in “DETERMINATION OF
NECESSITY OF HEARING OR CLARIFICATORY
CONFERENCE – Immediately after the submission by
the parties of their position paper or reply, as the case
may be, the Labor Arbiter shall, motu proprio,
determine whether there is a need for a hearing or
clarificatory conference. At this stage, he/she may, at
his/her discretion and for the purpose of making such
determination, ask clarificatory questions to further
elicit facts or information, including but not limited
to the subpoena of relevant documentary
evidence, if any, from any party or witness”
(EMPHASIS SUPPLIED).

7. Whereas the Respondents believe that the Complainant

has the control and possession of the originals and
complete pages of the foregoing Annexes.

8. Whereas the Respondents believe that by submitting

such originals, they could now ask for a certification of
true copy of the same so as it can be used as evidence
for filing the appropriate Criminal Action against the
Complainant for falsification of private documents and
perjury.
9. Whereas the Respondents believe that the disclosure of
the said originals would give light to the determination
of the outcome of the case because of the following
reasons:

a. That complainant was only employed by the

Respondents on January 5, 2024; and,
b. That the Mone Claims of Complainant can only be
appreciated as of January 5, 2024 onwards.

10. Whereas the Respondents hereby pray for the approval

of the Honorable Labor Arbiter for the production of the
said originals because they have the equal right to
verify the veracity of the same.

11. Wherefore premises considered, the Respondents move

and request for the scheduling of a clarificatory hearing
or conference in consideration of the production of the
originals of Annex “C” to “C-1” and Annex “E” of
the Complainant’s Position Paper; and, accordingly,
request for the abeyance of the decision on the instant
Labor Complaint until the Honorable Labor Arbiter’s
interlocutory order of this instant motion.

NATURE OF THE CASE

12. The Complainant clarified in his Position Paper the

following alleged causes of action the he has against
the Respondents, to wit:

 Illegal Dismissal;

 Payment for Overtime Work, Rest Day and Holiday

Premium Pay, Night Shift Differential Pay, Service
Incentive Leave Pay, 13th Month Pay for the year
2024, Payment for Backwages, and Separation
Pay;

 Return of Cash Bond Posted for the Use of

Company-Owned Firearms;

 Claims for Nominal Damages for violation of his

right to due process;
  Claims for Moral Damages for the stress and
anxiety he suffered while waiting for the call or re-
assignment from Primo Shied;

 Claims for Exemplary Damages; and,

 Claims for Attorney’s Fees.

13. The Respondents’ join the foregoing issues and now

move to strike-out the issues pertaining to SSS, Pag-
IBIG, and PhilHealth remittances for lack of jurisdiction,
including the other issue pertaining to Retirement Pay
for being incompatible with the cause of action for
illegal dismissal. However, the evidence pertaining to
the same, particularly Annex “I”, shall be used by the
Respondents to maintain that Complainant was only
employed on January 5, 2024.

14. In pursuance of the above-mentioned Motion, we set-up

a counterclaim against the Complainant for Contempt
and for the payment of Moral and Exemplary Damages
in submitting fraudulent and fabricated pieces of
evidence.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

COMPLAINANT WAS NOT

CONSTRUCTIVELY
DISMISSED AS HE WAS
FACED WITH A RETURN TO
OFFICE NOTICE AND A
NOTICE TO EXPLAIN FOR
ABANDONING HIS POST

15. Article 292 [277] of the Labor Code, as renumbered,

provides that “The burden of proving that the
termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall
rest on the employer”. However, Jurisprudence dictates
that he who alleges a fact has the burden to prove it
and mere allegation is not evidence (Luxuria Homes,
Inc., et al., v.s. Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R.
125986, January 28, 1999);

16. Moreover, Rule 131, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court states

that “Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his
or her claim or defense by the amount of evidence
required by law. Burden of proof never shifts
[EMPHASIS SUPPLIED]. Burden of evidence is the duty
 of a party to present evidence sufficient to establish or
rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case.
Burden of evidence may shift from one party to the
other in the course of the proceedings, depending on
the exigencies of the case”.

17. In the case of Mehitabel, Inc., vs. Jufhel L. Alcuizar, G.R.

228701-02, December 13, 2017, the Supreme Court
declared that “the burden of proof is on the one who
declares, not on one who denies. A party alleging a
critical fact must support his allegation with substantial
evidence, for any decision based on unsubstantiated
allegation cannot stand without offending due process.
And in illegal termination cases, jurisprudence had
underscored that the fact of dismissal must be
established by positive and overt acts of an employer
indicating the intention to dismiss before the burden is
shifted to the employer that the dismissal was legal”.

18. A bare allegation of CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL is bereft

of basis. In the case of Maria Vilma G. Doctor, et al., vs.
NII Enterprises, et al., G.R. 194001, November 22,
2017, it was declared that “bare allegations of dismissal
from employment, unsubstantiated by impartial and
independent evidence, is insufficient to establish such
fact of dismissal [UNDERSCORING SUPPLIED]. General
claims lacking in substantial details are not credible.
The basic rule of evidence states that each party must
prove his affirmative allegation, and that mere
allegation is not evidence. The Supreme Court also
stressed that the evidence to prove the fact of the
employee's termination from employment must be
clear, positive, and convincing. Absent any showing of
an overt or positive act proving that respondents had
dismissed petitioners, the latter's claim of illegal
dismissal cannot be sustained - as the same would be
self-serving, conjectural, and of no probative value”;

19. Focusing on the issue of illegal dismissal, a reading of

Complainant’s Position Paper clearly shows that
Complainant is harping on the argument that the
Respondents had constructively dismissed his
employment by displacing him without sufficient cause
and without materializing the initial plan to reassign
him into another post. As a result, Complainant alleged
that he had been put into floating status since October
15, 2024, and now decided to file a case for
constructively dismissal on February 5, 2025 since it
 had been three (3) months ever since his last day of
duty.

20. To bolster his allegation, Complainant then alleged that

based on the screenshot of an FB Chat in Annex “G” of
his Position Paper, “on October 15, 2024, Mr. Abelardo
Gatongay OIC, under the account name of Tiger, posted
in their group chat in Facebook Messenger that there
was a memo wherein Mr. Majan and three other
security officers will be “mababawas” due to
termination of Hanin Town Post and that they need to
go to Irung detachment in Mabalacat, City Pampanga”;
that, “Mr. Majan took this message as being transferred
to another unit”. Complainant then proceed to allege
that “the next day [October 16, 2024], he was informed
by his fellow security officer who went to Irung
detachment in Mabalacat, Pampanga that there was no
work in the said area and that their inspector, Mr. Arnel
Yorong a.k.a. “Batman” was also not in the area”. Later
on, Complainant mentioned that “three days after, Mr.
Majan personally talked to Mr. Gatongay and the latter
merely instructed him to talk to Mr. Yorong”.

21. Perusal of the alleged FB Chat shows that on October

15, 2024, Mr. Gatongay a.k.a. “Tiger” indeed informed
the Complainant and the rest of his co-workers that
they will be transfer in Irung Detachment which is also
under a Security Service Contract with the same
Principal-Client, The Hauslands Pampanga.

22. To be clear, Mr. Arnel Ganason Yurong is the Regional

Detachment Commander (RDC) for Pampanga while Mr.
Gatongay is an Officer-in-Charge having the same rank
as his fellow security guards with additional duties to
make a daily report to their Regional Detachment
Commander, their immediate supervisor. To prove this,
the Respondents present a series of FB Chat Messages
from RDC Yurong (see Annexes “1” to “1b”) in
relation to the allegations of the Complainant.

23. Annex “1” shows that as early as October 14, 2024,

RDC Yurong reported to the Respondents’ headquarters
in Quezon City, making a follow-up about the
reassignment orders of the security guards currently
posted in Hanin Town Detachment and made a
recommendation about the complaints of S/G
Mohammad, Domingo, and Basalan against S.O. Majan
about the latter’s abandonment of post every night-
shift duty to attend their business in the Public Market.
 He made the said follow-up of the Return to Office
Notice of the four (4) guards since the Security Service
Contract for the Hanin Town Detachment had been pre-
terminated effective on October 15, 2024.

24. Annex “1a” shows that on October 15, 2024, the

headquarters’ staff replied to RDC Yurong about the
recall of the four (4) enumerated guards, including the
complainant, who will be called back to the
headquarters on October 16, 2024. It also shows that
RDC Yurong forwarded to the headquarters a message
from OIC Gatongay regarding the relieve order of the
four security guards mentioned.

25. Annex “1b” shows that Mr. Yurong mentioned that he

forwarded the Return to Office Notice to OIC Gatongay
for dissemination to the named security guards.

26. On October 16, 2024, a Return to Office Notice (see

Annex “2”) was issued against the Complainant
regarding the issue of abandoning of post as reported
by OIC Gatongay, through RDC Yurong, via an Incident
Report (see Annex “2a”) which states that on various
dates of September 7-9, & 14, 2024; and, on various
dates of October 1-3, 6-7, & 9-11, it was revealed in the
logbook of the guard-on-duty at the entrance and exit
gate that the Complainant had been Checking-Out of
duty every past 11:00 P.M. in the evening, and would
always Check-In of duty before 2:00 A.M. To
summarize, Complainant had been leaving his post for
roughly two (2) to three (3) hours during his Night-Shift
Duties to attend their business in the Public Market. In
the said Return to Office Notice, Complainant was again
required to report back to the headquarters on October
17, 2024.

27. Based on the foregoing, the Respondents maintain that

Complainant belied his allegations that:

 He was informed by his fellow security officer that

there was no work in Irung detachment in
Mabalacat, Pampanga;

 That RDC Yurong was also not in the area; and,

 That three days after, he personally talked with

OIC Gatongay who instructed him to talk to RDC
Yurong
28. This is because of the fact that on October 16, 2024,
Complainant was ordered to proceed to the
headquarters in Quezon City which he did. Thereat,
Complainant personally received his copy of the Return
to Office Notice and the attached Incident Report. This
is evidenced by the signature of Complainant at the
lower right-hand side of the Return to Office Notice.

29. On October 17, 2024, a Notice to Explain (see Annex

3”) was issued against Complainant requiring him to
submit an explanation letter regarding the previously
served Return to Office Notice and Incident Report; and
on even date, Complainant reported again at the
headquarters in Quezon City as instructed and was
again personally served with said Notice to Explain as
evidenced by his signature.

30. Despite the foregoing, he never sent any written

explanation in relation to the Notice to Explain that was
served upon him. Considering that he never made any
explanation and never even reported back to the
headquarters in Quezon City, the Respondents deemed
him as resigned due to lack of interest. After the
October, 2024 incident, the Respondents only heard of
him again when they received the corresponding
Summons and Position Paper on June 18, 2024. Hence,
the Respondents maintain that they have not dismissed
the Complainant and that it was the latter who
abandoned his work by not responding to the Notice to
Explain issued against him due to lack of interest.

31. In fact, Complainant have not undergone the proper

clearance procedure of the Respondents. Hence, he has
yet to return the firearm issued to him. Lastly, it is
being reserved by the Respondents to submit additional
evidence involving the Cash Bond and the ongoing
investigation regarding the firearm issued to
Complainant.

THE COMPLAINANT
BELIED THE FACT OF HIS
HIRING DATE, HIS
EMPLOYMENT STATUS,
AND THE APPURTENANT
DOCUMENTS HE
ATTACHED IN HIS
POSITION PAPER
32. The Respondents reiterate as a counter-argument the
allegations contained in the afore-stated Request for
the Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Against the
Complainant.

33. In relation thereto, the Respondents attach as Annex

“4” the Probationary Employment Contract of
Complainant which began on January 5, 2024. His
monthly rate was PhP 26,700.00 being a “monthly-paid
employee” paid every day of the month.

34. Accordingly, the Respondents also attach as Annex

“5” the Affidavit of Ms. Jesusa O. Alcantara to deny the
existence of Annex “E” of Complainant’s Position Paper.
In relation thereto, the Respondents also attach as
Annex “6” their official Payroll Summary from January
to October, 2024 for their Security Personnels assigned
at Hanin Town / Timog Residences.

THE COMPLAINANT IS NOT

ENTITLED TO HIS
MONETARY CLAIMS

35. The Payroll shows the following tables: Number of

Hours Worked, Base Daily Wage, Hours of Overtime
Work and Amount Paid, Total Days Worked which
includes Special and Rest Days worked, Holiday Pay
Multiplier, Night-Shift Differential Hours Worked and
Amount Paid, Allowance Adjustments, Gross Pay,
Deductions, and Net Pay.

36. His monthly rate was PhP 26,700.00 being a “monthly-

paid employee” paid every day of the month. This is
way beyond the Minimum Wage prescribed for non-
agricultural sector in Region III effective during January,
2024 up to October, 2024. Perusal of some entries
would show that Complainant received more than his
monthly rate depending on the actual hours worked
and daily shifts.

37. Lastly, the Respondents counter-claim that the

Complainant must surrender first the firearm issued
against him and to undergo a clearance procedure first
before his 13th Month Pay for the year 2024, and Final
Pay can be paid, as well as for the return of his
accumulated Cash Bonds. To reiterate, since October,
2024, Respondents only heard of him when they
received the Summons and Position Paper related to
the instant case.
COMPLAINANT WAS
NOT BEING DENIED OF
HIS 13TH MONTH PAY

38. In the case of Emer Milan, et al., vs. National Labor

Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 202961,
February 4, 2015, the Supreme Court declared that
“institution of clearance procedures has legal bases.
Requiring clearance before the release of last payments
to the employee is a standard procedure among
employers, whether public or private. Clearance
procedures are instituted to ensure that the properties,
real or personal, belonging to the employer but are in
the possession of the separated employee, are returned
to the employer before the employee’s departure”.

39. Evidently, Complainant decided to file the instant labor

complaint instead of processing his exit clearance. For
the immediate release of his pro-rated 13 th Month Pay,
accumulated cashbond, and final pay, if any,
Complainant should be ordered to process his exit
clearance first and to return the issued Firearm to
afford the Respondents equal protection of laws and of
due process thereof.

COMPLAINANT IS NOT
ENTITLED TO MORAL
AND EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, AND
ATTORNEY’S FEES

40. Complainant cannot be given payment for moral and

exemplary damages because it was him who
abandoned his employment showing lack of interest to
pursue the same. The payroll attached shows that
Complainant had been paid made by the Respondent(s)
of his minimum statutory benefits as provided by law.

41. The facts show nothing worth of correction as to any

misbehaviors committed by them as to award the
Complainant payment for exemplary damages. In fact,
due to the fabrications being made by Complainant by
attaching Annexes C to C-1 and E, the Respondent
should be awarded with Moral and Exemplary
Damages.

42. In a line of labor cases decided by the Supreme Court,

the award of payment for moral damages is only
 appropriate in findings of illegal dismissal and illegal
suspension because it constitutes deprivation of
economic compensation which brings mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, and
wounded feelings. All of these are grounds for an award
of moral damages under the Civil Code. On the other
hand, the Respondents maintain that Complainant
besmirched their reputation in fabricating Annexes C to
C-1 and E.

43. Article 2220 of the Civil Code provides that “willful

injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding
moral damages if the court should find that, under the
circumstances, such damages are justly due. The
same rule applies to breaches of contract where
the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith”
[EMPHASIS SUPPLIED]. As such, the Complainant must
first establish bad faith on the part of the Respondent(s)
before the Honorable Labor Arbiter could award moral
damages. Jurisprudence held that bad faith implies a
conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act
for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity 1. The
circumstances herein presented failed to show any iota
of bad faith on the part of Respondent(s); hence, the
award of moral damages could never be proper in the
present situation. On the other hand, Complainant
acted fraudulently by deliberately presenting fabricated
pieces of evidence.

44. Also, under Article 2229 of the Civil Code, “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” and if the case involves a contract, Article
2332 of the Civil Code provides that “the court may
award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a
wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent
manner”. The foregoing instances can only apply in the
instant case if there were taint of wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive or malevolent behavior which
could be attributed to the actions and procedures made
by the Respondent(s) or their representatives. On the
other hand, the fabrication made by Complainant
should favor the Respondents to be awarded with
Exemplary Damages.

1
See Nancy S. Montinola vs. Philippine Airlines, G.R. 198656, September 8,
2014.
45. Lastly, complainant cannot be awarded with Attorney’s
Fees. Among others, the Civil Code in Art. 2208 awards
attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation and other
judicial costs: “when exemplary damages are awarded,
when the defendant’s act or omission has compelled
the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur
expenses to protect his interest, and in actions for the
recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and
skilled workers.” With these in mind, the Respondent(s)
maintain that attorney’s fees cannot be awarded
because exemplary damages cannot be awarded; and,
although Complainant has been compelled to litigate in
order to protect his interests, his cause(s) of action
have no leg to stand on.

RESERVATION

46. LASTLY, Respondent(s) humbly reserve the submission

of additional documents to prove its valid defenses for
the Labor Arbiter’s ratiocination of the merits of the
instant case.

47. This includes the Duty Detail Orders issued to

Complainant from January 5, 2024, and records
including pertinent investigation documents pertaining
to Complainant’s issued Firearm.

48. All of which shall be submitted through a Rejoinder or

Sur-Rejoinder, whichever may apply.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Office that the instant Labor
Complaint BE DISMISSED and the judgment be rendered in
favor of the Respondent(s) and to ORDER the Complainant
to pay MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES in relation to
the Fabrication of Annexes “C” to “C-1” and Annex
“E”.

Other reliefs and remedies just and equitable under the

premises are likewise prayed for.

General Trias, Cavite, for San Fernando City,

Pampanga, Philippines, July 4, 2025.

KEVIN G. PEREZ
Counsel for the Respondents
Blk. 27 Lot 24, Chloe St., Elliston Place
 Brgy. Pasong Camachile II, Gen. Trias, Cavite
#09186902421; mail.kevin_perez@[Link]
PTR No. GT 0769249; 2/13/25; General Trias, Cavite
IBP O.R. No. 507891; 1/14/25
Roll of Attorneys No. 86951
MCLE Compliance No. VIII-0011173,
issued on July 29, 2024 & valid until April 24, 2028

Copy Furnished:

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Guagua Pampanga District Office
Units B & C JohnCor Residences
JASA, San Jose, Guagua, Pampanga
Counsel for the Complainants

LABOR ARBITRATION ASSOCIATE

Office of the Honorable Labor Arbiter
HON. MA. CRISTINA L. CAMUA – DE GUZMAN
Regional Arbitration Branch III
4th Floor, ASCORP Building, MacArthur Hwy
San Fernando City, Pampanga

EXPLANATION

The respective filing and service of the foregoing

Pleading to this Honorable Office and to the parties relative
to the above-captioned case were done through accredited
private courier service, LBC Express, Inc., and not personally
in compliance with Rule 13, Sections 3(c), 5, 16, & 17 of the
Rules of Court, personal service not being practicable due to
distance between offices and for lack of material time.

KEVIN G. PEREZ

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM

SHOPPING

I, KEVIN G. PEREZ, of legal age, Filipino, having office address

at Blk. 27 Lot 24, Chloe St., Elliston Place Brgy. Pasong Camachile
II, Gen. Trias, Cavite, and may be served with decision, orders,
and notices therewith, after having been duly sworn in
accordance with law, hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the counsel on retainer of PRIMO SHIELD SECURITY

AND INVESTIGATION, INC., JONATHAN Q. MOLINA, the
Respondents in the above-captioned case; and, I have
prepared this Position Paper for the purpose of representing
the said Respondents. I have read and understood its
contents which allegations are true and correct based on
 my own personal knowledge, and on authentic documents,
which have evidentiary support or, if specifically identified,
will likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for discovery.

2. The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary

delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation and we
have not commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court
of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency.

3. To the best of our knowledge and belief, no other action or

proceeding involving the same parties and the same cause
is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
any other tribunal or agency; thus, if we should thereafter
learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact
to this Honorable Office within five (5) days from such
knowledge.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 4 th

day of July, 2025.

KEVIN G. PEREZ
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______________,

2025, at ____________________________________________ after affiant
exhibited to me his UMID CRN-011-1444-9049-4 bearing his
picture and signature as competent proof of his identity.

Doc. No. ______;

Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of ______.