Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Quezon City

MARY GRACE D. CARPIO and

RENILDA R. GALOS,
Complainants,

NLRC Case No. NCR 04-01446-03

vs. NLRC CA No. 046188-03
Labor Arbiter Fe S. Cellan

MAKATI (SPORTS) CLUB,

INC., ET AL.,
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------x

REJOINDER
RESPONDENTS through undersigned counsel unto this
Honorable Office most respectfully state that:

1. On May 3, 2016, respondents received

complainants Reply dated April 26, 2016;

2. By law and jurisprudence, separation pay may be

awarded to a dismissed employee in lieu of reinstatement;

3. Under the circumstances of this case, respondents

reiterate that this Honorable Labor Arbiter clearly did not err
when she issued the Order dated February 15, 2013 awarding
complainants separation pay in lieu of reinstatement;

4. The Memorandum of Appeal which the

complainants filed seeking to annul the February 15, 2013
Order of the NLRC is one of the prohibited pleadings under the
NLRC Rules of Procedure.1 Respondents respectfully submit
that the February 15, 2013 Order has long become final and
executory and can no longer be disturbed for failure of the
complainants to file a Verified Petition before the Commission

1
Section 5(i), Rule V of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure.

1
within ten (10) days from receipt of the said Orders as required
under Sections 1 and 3, Rule XII of the 2011 NLRC Rules of
Procedure.

5. We wish to stress that the February 15, 2013 Order

has already resolved, among others, complainants earlier
Motion for Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution dated March 29,
2012. Therefore, there is nothing more for the complainants to
reiterate in their Motion for Early Resolution for the Issuance
of Alias Writ of Execution. With the denial of their March 29,
2012 Motion for Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution, there is
nothing more for this Honorable Office to resolve. Thus, it is
considered moot and academic.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most

respectfully prayed that complainants Motion for Issuance of
Alias Writ of Execution be DENIED for utter lack of merit and
for being moot and academic.

Other just and equitable reliefs under the premises are

likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Makati for Quezon City, May 5, 2016.

ESTELLA AND VIRTUDAZO LAW FIRM

Counsel for Respondents
Suite 5B, 5th Floor, Electra House Bldg.
115 Esteban cor. V.A. Rufino Streets
Legaspi Village, Makati City
Tel. No. 812-7608/ 8403028

By:

SIMPLICIO M. VIRTUDAZO JR.

PTR No. 5330763, Jan. 08, 2016, Makati
Lifetime Member No. 03962 June 28, 2004
IBP O.R. No. 580767 Manila II Chapter
Roll of Attorneys No. 32289
MCLE Compliance No. V-0007078, Mar. 31, 2015

2
Copy furnished:
MARY GRACE D. CARPIO/RENILDA R. GALOS-VERSOZA
Complainant
15 Coronado Street
Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City

EXPLANATION OF SERVICE
(Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended)

A copy of the foregoing Rejoinder is served by registered

mail with return card attached to complainants Mary Grace D.
Carpio and Renilda R. Galos-Versoza due to impracticability of
personal service caused by distance.

SIMPLICIO M. VIRTUDAZO JR.