Sample Position Paper 4n54q

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION Regional Arbitration Branch No. III City of San Fernando, Pampanga ROSALINA V. DOMINGO, Complainant, versus

NLRC CASE No. RAB III 08-21823-14 (Labor Arbiter: Hon. Leandro M. Jose)

MECTAP INTERNATIONAL PLACEMENT SERVICES INC., Respondents. x-------------------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER RESPONDENTS, by counsel, unto this Honorable Office, respectfully state:

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND RELEVANT ANTECEDENTS 1. Complainant applied as a Domestic Helper with respondent MECTAP for its foreign principal in Malaysia. She was given the proper orientation and made to comply with the needed requirements. 2. Complainant agreed that her monthly salary shall be One Thousand Two Hundred Malaysian Ringgit (RM 1,200.oo), which is equivalent to US$400.oo, and to be paid in Malaysian Ringgit, as evidenced by the Job Description duly signed by complainant, a photocopy of which is hereto attached and marked as Annex “A”. 3. Upon submission by complainant to respondents of her papers and travel documents, complainant signed an overseas employment contract and the same was processed by respondent with POEA which eventuallly approved her papers for deployment to Malaysia; 4. Complainant respondents;

did

not

pay

placement

fee

to

5. On April 29, 2013, respondent deployed complainant to Malaysia to her agreed employer and at their agreed monthly salary; 6. Complainant was given the package of compensation which was agreed upon and as stated in her overseas employment contract. She was treated well in of food, shelter and dignity, however, complainant ran away. 7. Eventually, when complainant and respondent employer met, they entered into a settlement before the Office of the Labor Attache, in which they entered into a compromise agreement to settle their differences. 8. Respondent employer paid to Complainant her last salary and other money due her which amounted to in the total amount of RM 1,700.oo as full and complete payment of the remaining of her salaries and all her remaining monetary claims from respondent employer. The receipt states: “This is to ackonwledge receipt of One Thousand Seven Hundreds RM (RM 1,700) from AP SRIMANISA as payment for my salary. (Signed) ROSALINA DOMINGO A photocopy of which is hereto attached and marked as Annex “B”. 9. Complainant received all her salaries and executed “ Affidavit of Release, Waiver & Quitclaim”. Complainant stated in her Quitclaims as follows: “I, ROSALINA DOMINGO, of legal age, Single/Married, Filipino and with Philippine Address at Rizal, Nueva Ecija, and Malaysian Address at #1 Jalan SS2/59 Petaling Jaya, after having been duly sworn to law, depose and say: 1. That I hereby irrevocably and absolutely discharge my Malaysian Agency – 2

SRIMANISA with business address at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and my Philippine Agency MECTAP xxxx, its Officers and Staff from any and all liabilities and obligations arising from or, connected with my overseas employment; 2. That I have no more claims or demands, monetary or, otherwise against said Malaysian Agency SRIMANISA and Philippine Agency MECTAP, its Officers and Staff and Employees having been finally settled to my complete satisfaction; 3. That I agree and undertake to desist from initiating, instituting and prosecuting any suit, action or, proceeding against said Malaysian Agency SRIMANISA and Philippine Agency its Officers, Staff and employees arising from my overseas employment; 4. That I understand and accept that this Affidavit shall constitute and maybe invoked as total defense in any action or proceedings before NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) & PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ISTRATION (POEA); 5. That I have read and understood the contents hereof and no fraud, violence or intimidation has been employed against any person; 6. That I am executing this Affidavit knowingly, willingly and voluntarily to attest to the truth of the foregoing and for whatever other legal purposes it may serve; 7. That I fully understand the above and conditions and I sign this Affidavit freely and voluntarily.” A photocopy of her said “Affidavit of Release, Waiver & Quitclaim” is hereto attached and marked as Annex “C”.

3

10. On November 28, 2013, complainant returned back home to the Philippines; 11. After nine (9) months from her arrival, that is, on August 11, 2014, complainant filed this case before this Honorable Office apparently disregarding her Quticlaim before respondents and the Office of the Labor Attache in Malaysai. Now, she claims ACTUAL illegal dismissal, nonpayment of salary/wages and attorney’s fees. Hence, this position paper. III. ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT THIS CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE COMPLAINANT IS GUILTY OF ESTOPPEL AND LACHES IN FILING THIS CASE AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS WHETHER OF DISMISSAL

NOT

THERE

IS

ACTUAL

ILLEGAL

WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT HAS CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS IV. DISCUSSIONS

Basic is the principle that he who is negligent or omitted to assert a right within a reasonable time is presumed that he has either abandoned or declined to assert such a right. This is the same situation in this case. Complainant entered into a settlement with the respondent and she executed the “Affidavit of Release, Waiver & Quitclaim”. In fact, even after she returned back to the Philippines, neither did complainant file immediately any complaint for underpayment of salary nor demand from the respondents her alleged claims. She waited the lapse of nine (9) months before coming to this Honorable Office and filed the present complaint.

4

Jurisprudence on this matter is well-settled. Where a party sleeps on his rights and allows laches to set in, the same is fatal to his case (Periquet, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 238 SCRA 697). Laches had been defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it (Olizon vs. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 148). It is to be noted in this case that complainant was deployed on April 29, 2013, and after she entered into a settlement with the employer and receiving consideration thereof, she came back to the Philippines on November 28, 2014. Immediately after her arrival, complainant could have filed this case before this Honorable Office, but she did not, instead, only after the lapse of nine (9) months, that is, only on August 11, 2014 when she filed this case before this Honorable Office. This delayed action in filing this case is fatal to complainant’s cause of action as LACHES has already set in. The law helps the vigilant but not those who sleep on their rights. For time is a means of destroying obligations and actions, because time runs against the slothful and contemners of their own rights. (Gonzales vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 157 SCRA 597, January 29, 1988.).

5

Laches is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned it or has declined to assert it. (Cormero vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 247 SCRA 291 [1995]; Bailon-Casilao vs. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 738 [1988]; Villamor vs. Court of Appeals, 126 SCRA 574 [1988]; Marcelino vs. Court of Appeals, 210 SCRA 444, 447 [1992]; Ching vs. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 9, 17 [1990].) Laches has also been defined as such neglect or omission to assert a right taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate as a bar in equity. (11 Heirs of Bationg-Lacamen vs. Heirs of Laruan, 65 SCRA 125 [1975]; Victoriano vs. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 19, 24 [1991]; Jacob vs. Court of Appeals, 224 SCRA 189, 196 [1993].) The Supreme Court ruled in Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals, (264 SCRA 193.),that: That principle of laches is a creation of equity which, as such, is applied not really to penalize neglect or sleeping upon one's right, but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation. As an equitable defense, laches does not concern itself with the character of the defendant's title, but only with whether or not by reason of the plaintiff's long inaction or inexcusable neglect, he should be barred from asserting this claim at all, because to allow him to do so would be inequitable and unjust to the defendant.

6

The doctrine of laches or stale demands is based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and . . . is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted. The time-honored rule anchored on public policy is that relief will be denied to a litigant whose claim or demand has become "stale" or who has acquiesced for an unreasonable length of time, or who has not been vigilant or who has slept on his rights either by negligence, folly or inattention. In other words, public policy requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of claims

grown

stale

for

non-assertion;

thus

laches

is

an

impediment to the assertion or enforcement of a right which has become, under the circumstances, inequitable or unfair to permit.”

Notwithstanding the foregoing, complainant has no cause of action because all of her salaries were duly paid by her employer; in fact, she executed a receipt (Annex “B” hereof).

Nonetheless, as reasoned out above and as proven by documents submitted herewith, complainant claims have been settled and paid and already executed a quitclaim and release in favor of the respondents, hence this case must be dismissed. It may be argued that the complainant would not have filed this case if there was no violation of her right. This argument

7

lacks basis in fact and in law because “The filing by complainant

of

alleged

illegal

dismissal

and

unpaid

salaries are but plain mistake. Complainant has nothing to loss in filing this case against respondents but she had everything to gain because this case can even be filed without paying any monetary costs or spending for a filing fee. Nonetheless, be that as it may, the substantial evidence

herein

submitted

by

respondents

that

complainant has no cause of action should not be ignored on the pretext that herein complainant would not have filed this complaint if she was paid in full with her salary. This non sequitor reasoning cannot take the place of the evidence submitted by herein respondents that indeed there was no such underpayment”. . WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully moved that the instant complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are likewise sought. Quezon City, October 2, 2014.

Atty. ROGER ALIM RODRIGUEZ Counsel for Respondents c/o MECTAP INTERNATIONAL PLACEMENT SERVICES INC. Rooms 105 – 106 VIR Building 1840 E. Rodriguez, Cubao, Quezon City P.T.R. No. 8439481 * Pasig City * January 11, 2013 I.B.P No. 882584 * Pasig City * January 10, 2013 MCLE No. III 14549 * Pasig City * April 26, 2010 Roll No. 47673

8

9

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) ____________________________) SS.

VERIFICATION I, METELINA B. FORMENTO, of legal age and Filipino, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state THAT: I am the president of Mectap International Placement Services Incorporated, one of the respondents in the aboveentitled case, that I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing POSITION PAPER and I have read and understood the contents thereof and the same are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and based on authentic records on hand; AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this October 2, 2014. METELINA B. FORMENTO Affiant port Number EC1095030 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this October ____, 2014.; affiant exhibited to me her port Number EC1095030 a competent and government issued i.d. DOC. NO. ____ PAGE NO. ____ BOOK NO. ____ Series of 2014.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Copy furnished: ROSALINA DOMINGO Complainant

10