REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
MANONGDO BLDG. 17 PRIVATE RD.,
MAGSAYSAY AVE., BAGUIO, 2600 BENGUET

OFFICE OF LABOR ARBITER KAREN MANG-USAN

ROOM 311, 3RD FLOOR, NLRC BUILDING

JONALYN BEDKING- CASE NO.

BALOLANG,
Complainant,
-versus-

EMING-MILO MANPOWER
SERVICES INC.; AND
SAYED AL-HAMADAH
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
FOR THE RESPONDENTS

RESPONDENTS, by and through the undersigned Counsel, and unto

this Honourable Commission, respectfully avers:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The above-entitled Labor Case docketed as CASE NO. CAR-113478-

09 was instituted by Complainant JONALYN BEDKING-BALOLANG
against EMING-MILO MANPOWER SERVICES and Mr. SAYED AL-
HAMADAH for alleged Underpayment and Breach of Contract.
POSITION PAPER
Re: Balolang vs. Eming-Milo Manpwer Services
Page 2 of 7
----------------------------------------------

THE PARTIES

Complainant is of legal age, single, Filipino, and with residence

atUcab #554 PUROK 3 GIBRALTAR, BAGUIOCITY.
Respondent Eming-Milo Manpower Services, is a recruitment agency
organized under prevailing Philippine laws, with principal office address at
#25 Gov. Pack Road, Session Road, Baguio City.
Respondent Mr. SAYED AL-HAMADAH, is the employer of Complainant
JONALYN BEDKING-BALOLANG in Saudi Arabia.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

The respondent agency acknowledges that complainant Jonalyn

Bedking Balolang was legally deployed by the agency to Saudi Arabia.
Complainant was recruited by the employer through Eming-Milo
Manpwer services, who promised her employment in Saudi Arabia as a
domestic helper. After completing the necessary requirements complainant
was able to get a 2 year employment contract in Saudi Arabia as a
domestic helper, for Mr. Sayed Al-hamadah.
Under the tenor of the employment contract, Ms. Jonalyn Bedking
Balolang would receive a monthly salary of US$400.00. It was likewise
written in the OFW information sheet issued by the POEA, that complainant
was deployed on March 10, 2016 and that her employment contract would
expire 2 years thereafter.
Her foreign employer, Mr. Al-hamadah, is an middle-aged Saudi
Arabian man who lives and manages a four storybuilding. He was assisted
by his wife, 2 helpers, one of whom is tasked in maintaining the building
clean and the other is tasked to take care of the store and collect the
monthly rent. Due to physical weakness, Mr. Al-Hamadah decided to hire a
caregiver and on March 10, 2016, complainant Ms. Balolang arrived as his
domestic helper.
Balolang prepares meals and cleans the premises of Mr Al-Hamadah.
Respondent provided a decent room and food for the complainant.
However, the complainant had a hard time adjusting herself, was a picky
eater and sometimes was not able to follow simple instructions.
Despite her shortcomings, Mr Al-Hamadah was lenient to her. The
latter provided the former with 4 day offs in a month and gave a bonus
whenever she showed diligence and enthusiasm to her job. Also, she also
received her salary every 10th day of the month
POSITION PAPER
Re: Balolang vs. Eming-Milo Manpwer Services
Page 3 of 7
----------------------------------------------

Usually, at around 1:30 in the afternoon, Mr. Al-Hamadah takes a

nap. One day, it was observed by Mr. Al-Hamadah that she was inside the
Masters bedroom while he was asleep.
Because of this, Mr Al-Hamadah narrated the story to his wife. She
then checked their belongings and found her golden bracelet missing.
Immediately, they checked the CCTV cameras which cover their room and
the sala. The footage revealed that Balolang entered the room and took the
golden bracelet. This prompted Mr. Al-Hamadah to enter her room while
she was sleeping. He asked her politely where the bracelet was. However,
Balolang denied taking it. He then went through her room and found the
bracelet inside her drawer. Balolang still refused she took the bracelet.
She was given a reasonable time to explain herself in the Philippine
Embassy. Instead of confessing, she claimed that she took nothing and
that she was framed by the wife of Mr. Al-Hamadah who was jealous of
her. The Embassy then asked the Al-Hamadahs of what plan they intend
do with her. Being gracious and considerate, they decided to dismiss her
services and send her home without charging her of any crimes.
The above-mentioned facts were narrated by Mr. Al-Hamadah to
Eming-Milo services through Skype which was followed by a letter signed
by the spouses.
Now, Compllainant Balolang claims that she was illegally dismissed.
The Respondent denies the illegality of the dismissal.
She also claims underpayment of her salary as stated in the contract.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1) Whether the complainant was illegally dismissed.

2) Whether the complainant was underpayed by the foreign
employer.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

1) The Complainant was not illegally dismissed

Art. 292 of the Labor Code states:
Art. 292. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an
employment for any of the following causes:
POSITION PAPER
Re: Balolang vs. Eming-Milo Manpwer Services
Page 4 of 7
----------------------------------------------

XXX
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the
person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his
duly authorized representatives;
It has already been alleged and sufficiently shown through the
attached documents that Complainant Balolang stole a golden bracelet
from her Saudi employer, Mr. Al-Hamadah.
The photographs from Mr. Al-Hamadahs CCTV footage show that
Respondent Balolang committed theft.
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. Theft is committed by any person who,
with intent to gain but without violence against, or intimidation of persons
nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the
latters consent.
The elements of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal
Code are as follows: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2)
that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with
intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the
owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of
violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.
In Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. NLRC, the Court explained
further, as follows:
Fraud or willful breach of trust reposed upon an employee by his
employer is a recognized cause for termination of employment and it is not
necessary that the employer should await the employees final
conviction in the criminal case involving such fraud or breach of trust
before it can terminate the employees services. In fact, even the
dropping of the charges or an acquittal of the employee therefrom does not
preclude the dismissal of an employee for acts inimical to the interests of
the employer.
To our mind, the criminal charges initiated by the company
against private respondents and the finding after preliminary
investigation of their prima facie guilt of the offense charged
constitute substantial evidence sufficient to warrant a finding by the
Labor Tribunal of the existence of a just cause for their termination
based on loss of trust and confidence. The Labor Tribunal need not
have gone further as to require private respondents conviction of the crime
charged, or inferred innocence on their part from their release from
detention, which was mainly due to their posting of bail. (Emphasis
supplied)
POSITION PAPER
Re: Balolang vs. Eming-Milo Manpwer Services
Page 5 of 7
----------------------------------------------

Based from the cited laws and jurisprudence, the claimants

cause of action cannot prevail since the complaint has no cause of
action against the respondent. Complainants act of filing the instant
case is tainted with bad faith and malice. She has proven that she is willing
to lie, distort facts, and go against ethics just to win a labor case and
thereby merit a monetary award. This is a moral outrage. It appears that
she is unaware that perjury is a crime.

2) The Complainant was not underpayed by the foreign

employer.
As seen in the contract, the complainant was to be paid
$US400.00 per month. However, she claims she was only paid
$300.00.
The respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the alleged underpayment of the complainants
salary by the foreign employer.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Commission

that the Complaint be dismissed for utter lack of merit. Other remedies
which are just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

MALIAMAN LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Respondents
3/F, Agito-Ko Bldg., Lovers Rd.,
Baguio City [074] 123 4000

ATTY. RIA EVITA MALIAMAN

Attorneys Roll No. 132315
IBP No. 232323 11.23.15 Baguio City
PTR No. 313131 11.23.15 Baguio City
MCLE Compliance No. V-0000123; 06.23.2014
POSITION PAPER
Re: Balolang vs. Eming-Milo Manpwer Services
Page 6 of 7
----------------------------------------------

VERIFICATION
I, GERALD MILO, Filipino and of legal age, hereby certify that:

I am the President of EMING-MILO MANPOWER SERVICES Inc.,

one of the respondents in the above-entitled case.

I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Reply (To

Complainants Position Paper) and the contents thereof are true and

correct based on my own personal knowledge and/or authentic records.

GERALD MILO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _________, affiant

exhibited to me his Passport No. XXXXXXXX, as proof of his identity.

Doc No. ______

Page No. _______
Book No. ______
Series of 2013
POSITION PAPER
Re: Balolang vs. Eming-Milo Manpwer Services
Page 7 of 7
----------------------------------------------

Copy Furnished:

MACUTAY LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Complainant
4/F, Tiu-See Bldg.,
Hacienda Rd., Baguio City
(074) 932-6543

ATTY. MICHELLE MACUTAY

Roll of Attorneys No. 12116; May 3, 2012
IBP No. 61311 (Lifetime)
PTR No. 9873543; 03-11-2013; Baguio City
MCLE Compliance No. III- 0012345
(June 3, 2014)