Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ROWENA C. RAMOS
Complainant,
POSITION PAPER
Prefatory Statement
Parties
Statement of Facts
3
Attached hereto as Annex “A” is a Certification issued by Respondent Company
12. The succession of events prior to the service upon
Complainant by Mr. Nair of the termination letter on 22
January 20154 clearly shows that her termination was illegal:
4
A photocopy of which is attached hereto as Annex “B”
5
Attached hereto as Annex “C” is the Organizational Chart of the Critical Care Division
of B. Braun prior to the reorganization effected by Mr. Julian Nair.
superior. Instead, they were told that they will be
reporting to Mr. Nair as their immediate boss. 6
13.1. Only two (2) days have elapsed from the time
that Mr. Nair instructed the ANSUR team, the product
manager of whom was the Complainant, that they would
be reporting directly to Mr. Nair instead of Mr.
Mondonedo to the time that Complainant was informed
of her impending termination. It is not possible for Mr.
Nair to be able to reasonably assess and evaluate Ramos’
performance in such a short period of time.
15. This malice and bad faith on the part of Mr. Nair
could be proven by a succession of analogous events in the
past where he made several attempts to remove the
Complainant from B. BRAUN. Dismissing Complainant on the
ground of redundancy was his last and final try to dismiss her
illegally. In the past, Mr. Nair had already demonstrated
malice and ill will towards Complainant. The following outlines
Mr. Nair’s specific acts of discrimination against Complainant:
7
Attached hereto as Annex “E” is the 24 June 2013 e-mail of Mr. Nair.
8
Attached hereto as Annex “F” is Complainant’s reply to
9
Attached hereto as Annex “G” is the 26 June 2013 e-mail of Mr. Nair.
current position was not even in sales and marketing but
allied services, i.e. Marketing Services and head of the B.
Braun educational arm, Aesculap Academy. The
announcement was done within the management team of
ITG business unit, but considering the B. Braun
network, it has already gone around that Raul was to be
assigned as head of the business unit (BU). For some
reason, only known to Mr. Nair, However, and despite
that fact that word has already gone around that Raul
was to be promoted Business Unit Head (“BUH”), Mr.
Nair named a totally different person in November.
Complainant surmises that it has probably reached Mr.
Nair that Complainant commented that with Raul as
Business Unit Head, she could, in effect, still be calling
the shots in the Business Unit.
ISSUES
Discussion
Complainant’s dismissal
was not based on any just
or authorized cause. There
was no valid dismissal on
the ground of redundancy
for failure of the
Respondents to show that
Complainant’s position
has become superfluous.
x----------------------------------------------x
23. The Supreme Court has laid down the principle that
the employer must use fair and reasonable criteria in the
selection of employees who will be dismissed from employment
due to redundancy. Such fair and reasonable criteria may
include the following, but are not limited to: (a) less preferred
status (e.g. temporary employee); (b) efficiency; and (c)
seniority. The presence of these criteria used by the employer
shows good faith on its part and is evidence that the
implementation of redundancy was painstakingly done by the
employer in order to properly justify the termination from the
service of its employees.15
14
Asian Alcohol Corporation vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 131108, 25 March 1999.
15
Arabit, et al. vs. Jardine Pacific Finance, Inc., G.R. No. 181719, 21 April 2014.
26. The other product manager, Ms. Jocelyn Pahang,
whom Mr. Nair opted to retain, is junior to Complainant’s
position. She is an immediate subordinate of the Complainant.
Worthwhile to note is that prior to the re-organization, Ms.
Pahang was performing the tasks of product associate which is
one level lower than actual position of Complainant. Between
the Complainant and her assistant, the former was the
strategic thinker who made and can make sound decisions for
the product groups.
Complainant is entitled to
separation pay and actual
and compensatory
damages in the amount of
the pecuniary loss she
suffered due to her illegal
dismissal.
x----------------------------------------------x
46. Under the Labor Code, an illegally dismissed
employee is entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or
separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable, and
backwages. The normal consequences of complainant’s illegal
dismissal, then, are reinstatement without loss of seniority
rights, and payment of backwages computed from the time
compensation was withheld up to the date of actual
reinstatement.
19
Aliling v. Feliciano, et. al. , G.R. No. 185829, 25 April 2012.
20
Id.
48. This is what the law provides as a relief to an
illegally dismissed employee, viz:
21
Algarra vs. Sandejas, 27 Phil 284
22
Attached hereto as Annex “J” is the Complainant’s Annual Income Tax Returns.
a. Ten years of Service award plaque and B.
Braun watch;
Complainant is entitled to
the grant of moral and
exemplary damages.
x----------------------------------------------x
Complainant is likewise
entitled to Attorney’s Fees
and Legal Interest
x----------------------------------------------x
25
G.R. No. 166109, 23 February 2011.
26
G.R. No 111584, 17 September 2001.
61. Finally, legal interest shall be imposed on the
monetary awards herein granted at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of Complainant's termination until fully paid. 27
PRAYER
27
Aliling v. Feliciano, et. al. , G.R. No. 185829, 25 April 2012.
e. Monetized Annual Sick Leave of 15 days and Vacation
Leave of 10 days of PHP429,672.73 (1.13 months/year x
4 years);
ZARDI ABELLERA
PTR No. 10806426J - 1/5/15 – Las Piñas City
IBP Lifetime Roll No. 02566 - 1/3/01 - PPLM
Roll of Attorneys No. 38310
MCLE Compliance No. IV–0008279, 10/04/2012
Email: zabellera@yahoo.com
Copy furnished:
ROWENA C. RAMOS
Affiant