Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

National Capital Region
Quezon City
ARVIN A. PASCUAL,
Complainant,
-

VERSUS -

NLRC NCR Case No. NCR-05-05071-15

LABOR ARBITER MARCIAL GALAHAD T.
MAKASIAR

SITEL PHILIPPINES and/or

MICHAEL LEE,
ASWIN SUKUMAR,
PHOEBE MONICA ARGANA
REMIL CANDA, and
AMOR REYES,
Respondents.

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

REJOINDER
(To Respondents Reply)
COMPLAINANT, by counsel, unto this Honorable Office, most
respectfully submits
the following comments by way of Rejoinder to
Respondents Reply, as follows:

PREFATORY
The name of the game is fair play, not foul play. We
cannot allow a legal skirmish where, from the start, one of
the protagonists enters the arena with one arm tied to his
back.
(Separate concurring opinion of Justice Teodoro
Padilla in Republic vs. Sandigan Bayan [G.R. Nos. 109430-43
December 28, 1994])
"A party's falsehood or other fraud in the preparation
and presentation of his cause, his fabrication or suspension
of evidence by bribery or spoliation, and all similar conduct,
is receivable against him as an indication of his
consciousness that his case is weak or unfounded, and from
that consciousness may be inferred the fact itself of the
cause's lack of truth and merit." (De Leon vs. Juyco, [G.R.
No. L-46153, June 5, 1942], citing I Wigmore on Evidence,
sec. 277, pp. 566-568)
Complainants Rejoinder

Page 1 of 17

1. The handwriting on the wall is clear and unmistakable, a reading of

Respondents position paper and reply instantaneously betray a baneful
intent on their part to pervert the course of justice. A mere cursory reading
of Respondents pleadings revealed that the necessary motive behind
Respondents conduct is to becloud the truthful accounts of Complainants
resignation albeit against his will. The ultimate is the baneful goal of
depriving Complainant what he truly deserves having been illegally and
constructively dismissed by Respondents. In summary, this broad range of
Respondents [MIS]conduct includes CHARACTER ASSASINATION,
MALICIOUS
IMPUTATION
OF
OFFENSE,
SUPPRESSION
&
FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE, and PERVERSION OF TRUTH.
1.1 Character Assassination
What is most depressing in this case is that, Respondents, in
their Position Paper and Reply, in desperate attempt to reject
Complainants cause, opted to attack the very person of Complainant
by labeling him as PARANOID (pp. 3,4,7 and 14 - Reply),
SCRIPWRITER and DRAMATIST (p.3 position paper), as well as
FABRICATOR OF LIES (p.19 position paper).
Respondents continual and fierce forays of vilification and
persecution, without a tinge of doubt, are offensive and derogatory
palpably calculated to dishonor and discredit the good name and
reputation of Complainant. What Respondents are trying to establish
sorely is Complainants lack of credibility which by legal standard is
wanting of any probative value. It is a basic rule on evidence that the
moral character of a party is generally inadmissible. It may be
admitted only when the issue of pertinent character is itself involved
in the case (Section 51, Rule 130, Rules on Evidence).
On another point, while these defamatory statements were
written by Respondents legal counsel, it is legal truism that the
language of Respondents legal counsel is deemed to be the language
of the person who signed the verification of a pleading. In the instant
case, Respondent Aswin Sukumar an Indian national. Just a thought,
who between the Complainant and Respondent Sukumar has the
propensity towards committing slander?
Corollary to the foregoing, Complainant, with the indulgence of
the Honorable Labor Arbiter, posed the following questions: [a] Is this
how a global employer treats a lowly Filipino worker like Complainant
whose only motive is the defense of his constitutional right? and [b] If
Complainant truly possessed the kind of reputation or character, which
Complainants Rejoinder

Page 2 of 17

the latter vehemently deny, that Respondents had portrayed him to be

in their pleadings, how is it possible that he was promoted twice by
Respondents and permitted by them to stay in its employ for eight (8)
straight years before easing him out?
1.2 Suppression and Fabrication of Documentary Evidence
Annexes 1 up to 3 of Respondents Reply are not the official pay
slips of Sitel. Below is a reproduction of Sitels OFFICIAL PAY SLIP.

Upon the other hand, below is a reproduction of Complainants pay

slip fabricated by Respondents.

It is discernable that Respondents were constrained to fabricate pay

slips because they do not want to highlight the coach incentive pay
that they granted to Complainant during the months of August and
September 2014. Respondents grant of coach incentive pay to
Complainants Rejoinder

Page 3 of 17

Complainant will run counter to the contents of their fabricated

Team Performance vs. Goal result as well as Focus Group
Discussion result (pages #8 and #9 of Respondents position
paper).
It should be noted that Respondents utilized the fabricated Team
Performance vs. Goal result as well as Focus Group Discussion result to
beef up their malicious imputation that Complainant is inept in the
performance of his duties and responsibilities as Comcast CSG coach.
Additionally, to damage Complainants reputation in furtherance of
Respondents character assassination foray.
Unsatisfied with fabrication of documentary evidence,
Respondents went bolder with their oppressive acts against
Complainant by suppressing the evidence that Complainant in fact
submitted medical certificates duly verified by Respondent Sitels
Clinic Team.
(Annexes A up to A-10 and Annex B of
Complainants Reply). All these verified medical certificates were copy
circulated via electronic mail correspondence to Respondents Canda,
Reyes, and Argana.
The wicked goals of Respondents in suppressing the truth about
the submission of verified medical certificates by Complainant are as
follows:
A] Heighten Respondents character assassination strategy that
Complainant is an absentee coach; and
B] Justify their illegal withholding of Complainants salary.
1.3 Perversion of Truths
Respondents are manifestly drawing away the Honorable Labor
Arbiter from what the facts are.
In addition to slaughter of
Complainants character and reputation as well as suppression and
production of evidence, Respondents even indulged into corruption of
facts, as follows:
1.3.1 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the
fact
that former Operations Manager Glenn Kuan illegally
enticed Complainant on 18 October 2014 to resign (please see
p. 10 of Complainants Position Paper and its attached Annexes
C-1).
1.3.2 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the
fact that it was Respondent Argana who prevented Complainant
Complainants Rejoinder

Page 4 of 17

from participating in the administrative hearing by exhibiting

cold disdain to all of Complainants requests in contravention of
prevailing law and jurisprudence. Among these requests which
were contumaciously denied by Respondent Argana are (a) to be
provided with copies of all documents, records, and evidence
against the latter in the possession of Respondents.
The
intention of Complainant is to afford his legal counsel the
opportunity of prior review.
Enabling him (Complainant)
therefore to properly and intelligently prepare his defenses to
the infractions leveled against him (please see Annexes H up
to H-5 of Complainants Position Paper) and (b) to be given
with a written clarification what exactly is the scope or meaning
of the phrase xxx to assist you during the administrative
hearing. (please see Annexes I to I-3 of Complainants
Position Paper)
1.3.3 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the
fact that on 25 November 2014, Complainant filed a grievance in
relation to the five day suspension jointly imposed on him by
Respondents Sukumar, Argana and Reyes. Complainant sent his
grievance notice via electronic mail correspondence to (but
said grievance notice was treated with cold disdain by)
Respondent Sukumar. (please see Annexes P to P-1 of
Complainants Position Paper)
1.3.4 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the
fact that Respondents peremptorily deducted the amount of
Php6,896.50 from his salary due on 28 November 2014. To
substantiate the illegal deduction, Respondents suppressed the
verified medical certificates submitted by Complainant. (please
see Annexes A to A-10 and Annex B of Complainants
Reply)
1.3.5 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the
fact of Respondents Arganas and Lees contumacious refusal to
issue Complainants certificate of employment despite written
demands. The refusal of Respondents to issue certificate of
employment to a terminated employee like Complainant is a
patent violation of the Labor Code (please see Annex T-2 of
Complainants Position Paper)
1.3.6 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the
fact that Respondent Reyes humiliated Complainant on 3
December 2014 when he submitted the Reply to CARE form 1
(Notice to Explain) that Respondent Reyes served to
Complainants Rejoinder

Page 5 of 17

Complainant on 2 December 2014 with stern warning that

should Complainant fail to submit his written explanation within
24 hours, the latter will be suspended.
Anent the foregoing, Respondent Reyes, in a hostile and
furious mood and in a manner offensive to Complainant's dignity
and personality, tongue lashed Complainant when the latter
requested clarification why he was being charged of AWOL
whereas he submitted duly verified medical certificates.
Respondent Reyes uttered Arvin, do you believed that you are
worthy of any explanation! (please see Annexes V to V-3 of
Complainants Position Paper)
1.3.7 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the
fact that Complainants plea for one day deferment so that he
could consult his legal counsel before he acknowledge receipt
the 5-day suspension notice that Respondent Sukumar was
compelling him to accept on 21 November 2014 irritated the
latter. As a consequence thereof, sarcastically made a remark
against Complainant Dont you have your own mind that you
still need legal advice before you affix your signature in the
suspension notice!
1.3.8 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the
fact that Respondents Canda and Reyes are fully aware that
Respondent Sitel had been incurring pecuniary losses ever since
Diosdado Remion was placed on off-the-phone status effective
14 May 2014 because the latter continuously receive salary
without productive output. (please see Annex C of
Complainants Reply)
1.3.9 Deliberately omitted in their Position Paper and Reply the
fact that Complainant, on his own volition, coordinated with the
Comcast Quality Team as evidenced by an electronic mail
correspondence dated 21 July 2014. Complainant in truth and
in fact requested for a transcription of the call between Remion
and the customer who accused the latter of exhibiting rude
behavior on 13 May 2014. But the Comcast Quality Team failed
to provide him with the transcript of call. Without the
transcript of call, there is no case against Remion. (please
see Annex D of Complainants Reply)
1.4 Malicious Imputation of Offenses
1.4.1 Respondents alleged in their Reply that Complainants
infractions are as follows:
Complainants Rejoinder

Page 6 of 17

a] Willful failure to act on the case of Mr. Remion who with

his full knowledge was loitering for four (4) months and
still receiving his salary (last paragraph p.3); and
b] Refusal to act on the instructions of Mr. Kuan to refer
the case of Mr. Remion to Human Resources (1 st paragraph
p.4).
Complainant repleads and adopt the allegations in paragraphs
#3 and #4 of his Reply to Respondents Position Paper insofar as
they are material, relevant, and pertinent and not contrary to
the allegations made in this Rejoinder.
Complainant further states that Respondent Sitel has the
absolute control over its information technology and electronics
communication system. Given this scenario, it is quite puzzling
how it is possible that all the Respondents in the instant case
were NOT AWARE about the existence of electronic mail
correspondences that would clearly exonerate Complainant from
any liability regarding the Diosdado Remion case. (for ready
reference, copies of Annexes C and D of Complainants Reply
are reproduced in pages 8 and 9 hereof respectively)
The reason is plain and obvious. One need not stretch the
imagination too far. Respondents maliciously suppressed the
presentation of these email correspondences because they
could not bear the thought that being managers and senior
manager they would be penalized for gross negligence in the
performance of duties. There is no better escape goat and later
on as sacrificial lamb but herein Complainant. Respondents
knew what was coming. In order to save their neck, they had to
devise a scheme to pass all the blame to Complainant. Thus,
they displayed the kind of conduct all of which were punitive in
nature and offensive to elementary norms of justice and fair play
(e.g. infringement of constitutional right to due process, insults,
coercion, discrimination, illegal deduction from salary,
imposition of misplaced superiority, etc.) so that Complainant
would be compelled to leave Respondent Sitel.

2. Respondents alleged in their Reply (p.11) that the notice of

suspension jointly served to Complainant by Respondents Sukumar, Argana,
and Reyes on 21 November 2014 was valid in form despite noncompliance with the pertinent provisions of Sitel Code of Conduct.
Complainants Rejoinder

Page 7 of 17

Furthermore, Respondents admitted in their Reply (p.11) that a waiver

of right to be heard in an administrative investigation must be expressed
pursuant to pertinent provisions of Respondent Sitels Code of Conduct. It is
mandatory that any employee similarly situated as Complainant must
accomplish an Administrative Investigation Waiver Form as
provided for in pp.27-28 of Sitel Code of Conduct.
However,
Respondents subliminally justified in their Reply
that such
provision cannot be made applicable to Complainant.
Anent the foregoing, Complainant repleads and adopt the allegations
in paragraph #1 (p.46 of Complainants Position Paper) and paragraph #2
(p.47 Complainants Position Paper) insofar as they are material, relevant,
and pertinent and not contrary to the allegations made in this Rejoinder.

Reproduction of Annex
C

Complainants Rejoinder

Page 8 of 17

Reproduction of Annex
D

Complainants Rejoinder

Page 9 of 17

Complainant further states that in Tan vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 128290
[November 24, 1998], the Supreme Court said
It should be stressed that the respondent company is
bound to observe its own procedural rules, which were put in
Complainants Rejoinder

Page 10 of 17

place to protect the right of its employees to due process. Its

failure to comply with such rules was indeed unfair and
arbitrary xxxx (emphasis supplied)
3. Respondents in p. #9 of their Reply alleged that the following
statements in Complainants position paper are self-serving and baseless for
no evidence was shown to support the same, to wit:
Complainant, at the time of his coerced resignation, was
suffering from a medical condition (both physiological and
psychological)
that
requires
immediate
medical
attention/procedure.
There is no evidence? This is the twisted narration of facts by
Respondents. They thought that they would be successful in perverting the
truth by suppressing the existence of verified medical certificates duly
submitted by Complainant (copies of the duly submitted verified medical
certificates attached in Complainants Reply as Annexes A up to A-10.).
Respondents were unsuccessful though.
As shown in the verified medical certificates issued by Sitels
accredited doctors, Complainant was suffering from the following medical
conditions (physiological and psychological):
cervical disc prolapse,
peripheral neuropathy, cervical stenosis, cervical radiculopathy,
myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and acute
pharyngitis.
4. Furthermore, Respondents in p. #9 as well of their Reply alleged
that the following statements in Complainants position paper are
irrelevant and baseless for no evidence was shown to support the
same, to wit:
Records of Respondent Sitel will reveal that during the
six-year period Complainant was assigned in the Virgin Media
account, his sick leave benefit is intact and always converted
into its cash equivalent. It was only after Complainant was
transferred to the Comcast CSG account that his health
drastically deteriorated due to the harsh, hostile and unfavorable
conditions set for him by Respondents..
The jurisprudential guide is that the burden of proof rests with
Respondents. In Libcap Marketing Corp. vs. Baquial (G.R. No. 192011 30
June 2014), the Supreme Court held, to wit:

Complainants Rejoinder

Page 11 of 17

As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the

burden of proving it. Even where the employee must allege
nonpayment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the
employer to prove payment, rather than on the employee to
prove nonpayment. The reason for the rule is that the pertinent
personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar
documents which will show that overtime, differentials, service
incentive leave and other claims of workers have been paid
are not in the possession of the employee but in the custody
and absolute control of the employer . (underscoring and
emphasis supplied)

5. Respondents beseeched the Honorable Labor Arbiter not to give

credence to all the electronic messages sent by Complainant to all of them.
Respondents justified its request by adducing the unsound reason and selfserving allegation that the contents of Complainants electronic mail
correspondences are baseless and imaginary (page 12 of Respondents
Reply).
The truth is that Complainant had been very transparent in all his
dealings with Respondents. Complainant tirelessly communicated with
Respondents. Upon the other hand, Respondents treated everything with
cold disdain.
They simply shrugged their shoulders down to all of
Complainants
communication
efforts.
Respondents
treated
all
communications of Complainant with cold disdain.
The Supreme Court in numerous cases held that silence on an
accusation is deemed an admission, especially because he had every
chance to deny it. Deafening silence can be considered a tacit admission
thereof (Tan v. Dela Cruz, Jr., A.M. No. P-04-1892 [30 September 2004;
Grefaldeo v. Lacson, A.M. No. MTJ-93-881 [3 August 1998]; Plus Builders, Inc.
vs. Revilla, A.C. No. 7056 [13 September 2006])
Additionally, the case of The Philippine American Life and General
Insurance Co. vs. Angelita Gramaje, G.R. No. 156963 [November 11, 2004] is
also instructive, to wit:
xxxx Incongruously, taking into consideration the said
contents of the formal letter of rejection, there was no response
whatsoever from the aforesaid offices (underscoring supplied). It
may be true, as stated by petitioner, that "the alleged
memorandum pertaining to the meeting held on 18 November
1998 on the alleged P250,000 settlement offer was prepared by
respondent alone without any participation from the company,"
Complainants Rejoinder

Page 12 of 17

but the fact remains that no formal response was ever made by
any of the three offices which received the same. The contents
thereof, if untrue, would have elicited a stark and strong
reaction from any of the three offices. (emphasis supplied).

6. Respondents alleged in page #14 of their Reply that

Thus, even if complainant mistakenly concluded that his
submission of his resignation was by reason of his unbearable
working conditions, the acceptance of his resignation clearly
ends the employer-employee relationship. Hence, in the end, it
was complainants paranoia that severed his employment with
Sitel.
Complainant repleads and adopt the allegations in paragraph #12
[Complainants Reply] insofar as they are material, relevant, and pertinent
and not contrary to the allegations made in this Rejoinder.
Complainant further states that foremost, the formal acceptance of
resignation letter of Complainant on 18 December 2014 by
Respondent Reyes [marked Annex 8 in Respondents position
paper] is a fabricated document.
Obviously, it would be preposterous for Complainant to send his
resignation letter to Respondent Reyes via two modes if Respondent Reyes
truly and formally accepted a resignation letter alleged to have been
personally tendered by Complainant on 18 December 2014. The two modes
are as follows:
[a]
Sent another copy to Respondent Reyes via electronic mail
correspondence on the following day, 12 December 2014 at 9:24 A.M.
(Annex U up to Annex U-3 of Complainants position paper); and
[b] Printed another copy of the same notice and sent it to Respondent
Reyes via registered mail with return card on 15 December 2014
(Annex V up to Annex V-3 of Complainants position paper).

7.
The supposition of Respondents that the acceptance of
Complainants resignation letter using a fabricated documentary
evidence clearly ends the employer-employee relationship is glaringly
erroneous.
The point in issue in the instant case is whether the execution of the
resignation letter tendered by Complainant to Respondents Lee and Reyes
Complainants Rejoinder

Page 13 of 17

was voluntary or involuntary. Put differently, whether the execution of the

resignation letter tendered by Complainant and alleged to have been
formally received by Respondent Reyes on 18 December 2014 using a
fabricated documentary evidence was voluntary or involuntary. Simply
stated, the point in issue here is not the acceptance of the resignation letter.
Instead, the voluntariness or involuntariness of its execution by Complainant.
The jurisprudential guide is that onus thereof rests with Respondents.
8. In Peaflor vs. Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing Corporation (G.R.
No. 177114, 13 April 2010), the Supreme Court said:
The fact of filing a resignation letter alone does not shift the
burden of proving that the employees dismissal was for a just
and valid cause from the employer to the employee. In Mora v.
Avesco, we ruled that should the employer interpose the defense
of resignation, it is still incumbent upon the employer to prove
that the employee voluntarily resigned.
XXXX
While the letter states that Peaflors resignation was
irrevocable, it does not necessarily signify that it was also
voluntarily executed. Precisely because of the attendant hostile
and discriminatory working environment, Peaflor decided to
permanently sever his ties with Outdoor Clothing. This falls
squarely within the concept of constructive dismissal that
jurisprudence defines, among others, as involuntarily resignation
due to the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions set by the
employer. It arises when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or
disdain by an employer exists and has become unbearable to the
employee. The gauge for constructive dismissal is whether a
reasonable person in the employees position would feel
compelled to give up his employment under the prevailing
circumstances.

9. In pages #18 and #19 of their Reply, Respondents, like a broken

music record of the past era insisted that Complainants absences from work
on the following dates were without valid or justifiable reason: Nov. 10, 13,
17, 22, 23, and 24, 2014.
Complainant repleads and adopt the allegations in paragraph #2
[Complainants Reply] insofar as they are material, relevant, and pertinent
and not contrary to the allegations made in this Rejoinder.
Complainant further states that by suppression of the verified medical
certificates duly submitted by Complainant to Respondent Sitels Clinic Team,
Complainants Rejoinder

Page 14 of 17

they thought that they were successful in their bad-natured design to

consider him on AWOL and peremptorily applied the principle of no-work, nopay policy. Thus, putting Complainant into deeper financial trauma.
Undeniably, this is an explicit
Respondents against Complainant.

manifestation

of

oppression

by

10. As an outgrowth of Respondents capricious imagination, they

went further by accusing Complainant that he called Respondent Sukumar
as a racist. This is baseless and devoid of truth. Nowhere in any of
Complainants electronic mail correspondences to all of the Respondents, his
position paper, and finally in his reply there is a single phrase whereby it is
written Respondent Sukumar is a racist!
The emails of Complainant to Respondents Reyes and Sukumar
wherein he ventilated his wounded feelings consequent to the kind of image
he was made to appear by a foreign national before fellow Filipinos right in
his own homeland when he was served a notice of 5-day suspension on 21
November 2014 was a legitimate exercise of rights and prerogatives as a
Filipino citizen duly supported by jurisprudence.
In People vs. Chua Hiong, C.A. [51 O.G. 1932], the Supreme Court
succinctly said, to wit:
Self-defense is mans inborn right.
In a physical assault,
retaliation becomes unlawful after the attack has ceased,
because there would be no further harm to repel.
But that is not the case when it is aimed at a persons good
name. Once the aspersion is cast its sting clings and the one
thus defamed may avail himself of all necessary means to shake
it off. He may hit back with another libel which, if adequate, will
be justified.
Furthermore, Respondents maliciously imputed against Complainant
the offense of harassment which imputation is false and untrue.
Complainants resort to the barangay was again a legitimate exercise of
rights and prerogatives as a Filipino citizen. Complainant merely complied
with legal requisites and jurisprudential guide before a criminal case could be
filed in court against Respondent Sukumar, to wit:
A] Administrative Circular No. 14-93 issued by the Supreme Court on
July 15, 1993.

Complainants Rejoinder

Page 15 of 17

B] Section 409 of Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code
of 1991.
C] Decision of the Supreme Court in Agbayani vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 183623 25 June 2012.
11. In Peaflor vs. Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing Corporation (G.R.
No. 177114, 21 January 2010), the Supreme Court emphasized three basic
labor law principles, to wit:
The first is the settled rule that in employee
termination disputes, the employer bears the burden of
proving that the employees dismissal was for just and
valid cause. That Peaflor did indeed file a letter of
resignation does not help the companys case as, other
than the fact of resignation, the company must still prove
that the employee voluntarily resigned. There can be no
valid resignation where the act was made under compulsion or
under circumstances approximating compulsion, such as when
an employees act of handing in his resignation was a reaction to
circumstances leaving him no alternative but to resign. In sum,
the evidence does not support the existence of voluntariness in
Peaflors resignation. (emphasis supplied)
Another basic principle is that expressed in Article 4
of the Labor Code that all doubts in the interpretation
and implementation of the Labor Code should be
interpreted in favor of the workingman. This principle has
been extended by jurisprudence to cover doubts in the
evidence presented by the employer and the employee.
As shown above, Peaflor has, at very least, shown
serious doubts about the merits of the companys case,
particularly in the appreciation of the clinching evidence
on which the NLRC and CA decisions were based. In such
contest of evidence, the cited Article 4 compels us to rule
in Peaflors favor. Thus, we find that Peaflor was
constructively dismissed given the hostile and discriminatory
working environment he found himself in, particularly evidenced
by the escalating acts of unfairness against him that culminated
in the appointment of another HRD manager without any prior
notice to him. Where no less than the companys chief corporate
officer was against him, Peaflor had no alternative but to resign
from his employment. (emphasis supplied)

Complainants Rejoinder

Page 16 of 17

Last but not the least, we have repeatedly given

significance in abandonment and constructive dismissal
cases to the employees reaction to the termination of his
employment and have asked the question: is the
complaint against the employer merely a convenient
afterthought subsequent to an abandonment or a
voluntary resignation? We find from the records that
Peaflor sought almost immediate official recourse to
contest his separation from service through a complaint
for illegal dismissal. This is not the act of one who
voluntarily
resigned;
his
immediate
complaints
characterize him as one who deeply felt that he had been
wronged. (emphasis supplied)

12. At length, other than the self-serving allegations of Respondents,

twisted narration of facts and their ceaseless painting of a negative picture
that stretch up to and cuts into the moral fiber of the illegally and
constructively dismissed Complainant, Respondents have not substantially
discharged its burden of proving that:
A] Complainants resignation was voluntary;
B] Complainants suspension was legal; and
C] The amount Php14,738.69 withheld from Complainants salaries
were valid exercise of management prerogative.
Complainant firmly believed that the Honorable Labor Arbiter will see
through Respondents false propaganda and will not be misled into believing
their lies as against Complainants pristine record of eight long and
dedicated years of service in Sitel Philippines. It bears stressing that
Respondents drama of intrigues and persecution continuously bring untold
sufferings to Complainant and his three dependent children.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby respectfully prayed
that judgment be rendered in favor of the Complainant and against the
Respondents declaring Complainants dismissal illegal and ordering
Respondents to jointly and severally pay Complainant the following:
1) Full back wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their
monetary
equivalent computed from the time Complainant was illegally
dismissed on 8 December 2014 up to the time of the final resolution of the
instant case (Please see Annex EE of Complainants Position Paper for
monthly salary and other benefits computation);
Complainants Rejoinder

Page 17 of 17

2) Separation pay amounting to one month pay for every year of

service starting on the date Complainant was hired on 26 October 2006 up to
the final resolution of the instant case;
3) Php14,738.69 representing payment for the illegally withheld wages;
4) Php5,725.19 representing payment for the five (5) days of
suspension;

illegal

5) Php500,000 representing moral damages;

6) Php500,000 representing nominal damages;
7) Php500,000 representing exemplary damages; and
8) Attorneys fees equivalent to 10% of the total judgment award.
Finally, Complainant respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may
be deemed just and equitable under the premises.
Bocaue, Bulacan for Quezon City, Metro Manila, September 5, 2015.

Complainants Rejoinder

Page 18 of 17