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 did not pay placement fee to respondents;

2
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 terms 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 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
3
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
ADMINISTRATION (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 terms
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.


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
4
the Office of the Labor Attache in Malaysai. Now, she claims
ACTUAL illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary/wages and
attorneys 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 NOT THERE IS ACTUAL ILLEGAL DISMISSAL

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.
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).
5
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 complainants 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.).
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.,
6
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.
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.
7
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 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
8
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



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 above-
entitled 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
Passport Number EC1095030


SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this October ____, 2014.;
affiant exhibited to me her Passport Number EC1095030 a competent
and government issued i.d.


DOC. NO. ____
PAGE NO. ____ NOTARY PUBLIC
BOOK NO. ____
Series of 2014.



Copy furnished:

ROSALINA DOMINGO
Complainant