Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Quezon City
National Capital Region
MARITES P. AMABAO AND
FRANCISCO A. AMABAO,
Complaina
nts,
-versus-

NLRC CASE NO. NCR-05-06289-

15
Hon. L.A. Gaudencio P.
Demaisip, Jr.
EVERGOOD
FOOD
PRODUCT/ALEX S. LAO,
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------x

COMMENT/OPPOSITION
(on Respondents Motion to Set Case for Conference)
Complainants, by counsel, to this Honorable Office, by
way of Comment/Opposition on Respondents Motion to Set
Case for Conference, most respectfully set forth the
following:
On 06 August 2015, respondents, through their counsel,
submitted a Motion to Set the Case for Conference. They
advanced that upon verification, records of this Honorable
Office reveals that respondents were not able to attend the
two (2) mandatory conferences. They further averred that
their counsel believes a compromise and amicable
settlement may be arrived at by the parties if another
hearing/conference of this case will again be set by this
Honorable Office.
With due respect, complainants are opposing the
aforesaid motion considering that respondents are merely
delaying the prompt disposition of this instant case.

It must be stressed that, on 10 July 2015, this

Honorable Office issued an Order which reads:
The respondents are directed to file a
Position Paper within ten (10) days from
receipt hereof.
Failure to do so shall be construed as a
waiver and the case shall be deemed
submitted for decision.
SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, Philippines, July 10, 2015.
On 21 July 2015, respondents, through their counsel,
filed an Entry of Appearance with Motion for Extension of
Time to File Position Paper, dated 21 July 2015, and asked
an additional period of sixteen (16) days or until 05 August
2015 within which to submit their Position Paper.
The body of respondents 21 July 2015 Entry of
Appearance with Motion for Extension of Time to File Position
Paper reads, to wit:
COME NOW RESPONDENTS, through the
undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable
Office, most respectfully state:
1.
The undersigned counsel formally
enters its appearance as counsel for the
respondents in the above-entitled case with
conformity of his client. In this connection, it
is requested that all order/s. resolutions,
judgments, pleadings and other pertinent
papers be furnished the undersigned counsel
at the address hereunder indicated;
2.
Further, it is respectfully manifest(ed)
that upon verification of the records of this
case, the undersigned counsels secretary
was informed that the case was already
submitted for evaluation by the Honorable
Labor Arbiter. Unfortunately, due to lack of
2

material time to intelligently prepare for the

said Position Paper, considering that counsel
was just recently hired for the above-entitled
case, the respondents, in the interest of
justice, is constrained to ask for an extension
of sixteen (16) days from today, or until
August 05, 2015, within which to file a
Position Paper.
3.
This motion is not intended to delay
the proceedings but for reason abovestated.
It is worthy to emphasize that the respondents did not
file their position paper despite the undertaking they set
forth in their 21July 2015 motion. Instead, they exuded the
boldness to further delay this instant case by asking the
setting of the case for a conference. Respondents are, thus,
trying to convince this Honorable Office that this case can
still be settled amicably.
If indeed the respondents are inclined to enter into a
compromise with the complainants, they should have
pursued the same earlier during the SEnA proceedings or
during the two (2) scheduled mandatory conferences before
the Honorable Labor Arbiter and not now when the case is
already deemed submitted for decision upon their failure to
comply with the 10 July 2015 Order of the Honorable Labor
Arbiter.
At the onset, complainant would like to manifest that,
as early as the proceedings before the Single Entry Approach
Desk Officer (SEADO), the law office of Atty. Joselito A.
Cometa is already appearing in representation of the
respondents. As proof thereof, attached hereto, and made
integral parts hereof, as ANNEX A and ANNEX B,
respectively, are the minutes of the SEnA proceeding, dated
08 April 2015 and 05 May 2015. Thus, there is no truth to the
averment of the respondents that the service of their
counsel was only obtained recently even as the records
reveal the contrary.
Even assuming, but not admitting, that the law office of
Atty. Joselito A. Cometa was just recently hired by the
respondents, their want of counsel does not excuse the
3

respondents from attending the two (2) scheduled

mandatory conferences before the office of the Honorable
Labor Arbiter. Their unexcused absence during the said
conferences, despite summons, has the corresponding
consequence which cannot be overlooked.
Section 10, Rule V of 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as
amended, is very clear:
RULE V
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LABOR ARBITERS
SECTION 10. NON-APPEARANCE OF
PARTIES. The non-appearance of the
complainant or petitioner during the two (2)
settings for mandatory conciliation and
mediation conference scheduled in the
summons, despite due notice thereof, shall
be a ground for the dismissal of the case
without prejudice.
In case of non-appearance by the
respondent during the first scheduled
conference, the second conference as
scheduled in the summons shall proceed. If
the respondent still fails to appear at the
second conference despite being duly served
with summons, he/she shall be considered to
have waived his/her right to file position
paper. The Labor Arbiter shall immediately
terminate the mandatory conciliation and
mediation
conference
and
direct
the
complainant or petitioner to file a verified
position paper and submit evidence in
support of his/her causes of action and
thereupon render his/her decision on the
basis of the evidence on record. (5a)
It bears emphasizing that the procedural requirements
of the rules are not harmless and trivial technicalities that
litigants can just discard and disregard at will. Considering
that they are requirements which cannot be trifled with as
mere technicality to suit the interest of the litigants, the
unjustified failure of the respondents to appear during the
two (2) scheduled mandatory conferences, despite due

notice, must be considered as respondents waiver of their

right to be heard in this case.
The respondents are now precluded from seeking reliefs
from this Honorable Office. They did not only fail to attend
the two (2) scheduled mandatory conferences. They likewise
failed to comply with the Order of this Honorable Office,
dated 10 July 2015, which required them to file their position
paper within ten (10) days from notice thereof. And worse,
they did not submit their position paper despite having
asked for an extension of time to file the same. Verily, their
motion to set the case for conference is a mere dilatory ploy
that does not deserve the consideration of this Honorable
Office and hence, must be denied outright.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most
respectfully prayed of this Honorable Office that, after due
consideration, an Order be issued DENYING respondents
Motion to Set Case for Conference. It is likewise prayed for
that the case be SUBMITTED FOR DECISION sans
respondents position paper even as the 10 July 2015 Order
of the Honorable Labor Arbiter has remained unsatisfied
despite the lapse of considerable period of time.
OTHER RELIEFS deemed just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.
Quezon City, 14 August 2015.

LAWIN
(Legal Advocates for Workers INterest)
Counsel for Complainants
Room 206, Jiao Building
2 Timog Avenue, Quezon City
Email address: lawin2setufree@yahoo.com
Telefax (02) 373-18-44

ERNESTO R. ARELLANO
PTR No. 0560896; 01-05-15; Q.C.
IBP No. 0981335; 01-05-15; CALMANA
ROLL No. 22660
MCLE No. IV-0017780; 22 April 2013

JASPER C. BALBOA
PTR No. 0595301; 01-06-15; Q.C.
IBP No. 0982982; 01-06-15; MANILA I
ROLL No. 63288
MCLE Compliance until 14 April 2016
Admitted to the Bar on 07 May 2014
(MCLE Governing Board Order No. 1, Series of 2008, 04 July 2008)

COPY FURNISHED: by registered mail

ATTY. JOSELITO A. COMETA
Counsel for the Respondents
17 Quirino Highway, Baesa, Quezon City
Registry Receipt No.:
Time and date:

______________________
______________________

EXPLANATION
(Re: Filing and Service by Registered Mail)
Pursuant to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
undersigned counsel respectfully manifests that the
foregoing Comment/Opposition on Respondents Motion to
Set Case for Conference was filed in this Honorable Office,
and a copy thereof was served on the affected parties, upon
their counsel, by registered mail, in lieu of the preferred
personal filing and service, due to constraint of time,
distance, and lack of messengers in the office of the
undersigned counsel.
(If eventually filed and/or served personally, please
disregard explanation accordingly)

JASPER C. BALBOA