I.

) Case Perspective

The case at hand presents a very common problem present not only in employee-employer dynamics but

rather in almost every facet of life. We have a matter now of adjudging two separate set of facts which stand

as two contradictory juxtapositions within a factual spectrum.

The case at hand presents a classic struggle between an employee who submits a prayer for redress against

prejudice caused unto him by his pertinent superior and an employer or extensionary officer thereof who

must defend himself from such allegations in the event they prove to be without merit and with malice. It

is a struggle for equity in a myriad of allegations of inequity and denial of what is due.

Upon review of the facts of the case, the author of this paper submits that the employee’s allegations against

the HRD officer of his employer is without merit. The allegations of the employee against the HRD officer

for illegal dismissal and for strong arming acts find its credulity on the statement of the employee alone

whereas the interpolations of the HRD officer countering the employee’s allegations is backed by clear and

convincing evidence including documentary evidence attesting to his submissions which thus makes it clear

that his statement rests on much more firm credulity in contrast to his adversary. Wherefore, the author of

this paper submits that in cases like the case at hand, pure objectivity must be the guide of adjudication and

while sympathy may have its places in struggles between employees and employers, in the end the final

say of the resolution of the matter must be derived from the clear and unequivocal voice of evidence.

II.) Statement of the Facts

Here wherefore is a case involving an employee who alleges strong arming practices against the HRD of a

company. In his complaint letter, employee – Mr. Roger Moor alleges the following:
  That he is under undue scrutiny if not, has incurred the unjustifiable disdain of his HRD manager

Mr. Di Maano for reasons which are irrelevant to his duty as a sales supervisor including his alleged

act of smoking within the company premises

 That Mr. Di Maano had coerced him to sign a resignation letter not made by him to the effect that

he is relinquishing his job as a sales supervisor of ABX company which constitutes an act of

constructive illegal dismissal.

 That the HRD office had failed to timely pay to Mr. Moor his 13th month pay, liquidate his Service

Incentive Leaves and had made improper deductions to his wages.

The allegations of Mr. Moor come with no supporting evidence.

The HRD Manager – Mr. Di Maano, on the other hand answered Mr. Moor’s complaints in this wise:

 That there is no undue scrutiny nor unjustifiable disdain on his part.

 That there are inconsistencies in the narration of Mr. Moor of his plight which was allegedly caused

by Mr. Di Maano which are clearly seen in the unclear narration of the dates of incidents narrated

therein which are refutable by a perusal of certain records of the company regarding work activities

such as company meetings and Mr. Moor’s own inquest proceeding for violations committed by

him.

 That Mr. Moor was indeed found guilty for smoking in the company premises which is a violation

of existing company policies. This answer is supported by an apology letter written by Mr. Moor

 That Mr. Moor had received his 13th month pay in a timely manner in accordance with the

reglementary periods provided by law. This is supported by records showing Mr. Moor received

payment before December 24 of each pertinent fiscal year and signed attestations thereto.
  That Mr. Moor had been payed his liquidated Service Incentive Leaves as seen by vouchers signed

by him

 That Mr. Moor was indeed the one who prepared his resignation letter as evidenced by the fact that

the same is written with his own handwriting and signed by him thus negating the presence of a

disposition that gives rise to constructive illegal dismissal.

Mr. Di Maano’s answer did not address the matter regarding the alleged unauthorized deduction of

wages.

III.) Statement of the Problem

Wherefore the premises considered we have the following problem that needs to be resolved:

“Did the HRD Manager commit illegal dismissal and great inequity against the employee?”

IV.) Statement of Objectives

In relation to the problem statement as enunciated in the previous portion of this paper and the pertinent

facts of the case, this paper seeks to:

 Determine whether or not there was illegal dismissal

 Determine whether or not Mr. Di Maano is unjustly prejudiced against Mr. Moor

 Determine whether or not the HRD department had failed to give Mr. Moor his due in his 13th

month pay and liquidation of Service Incentive Leaves

 Determine whether or not Mr. Moor had incurred unjust deductions from his wages.
V.) Analysis of Relevant Facts

The allegation of illegal dismissal

In the case at hand, Mr. Moor had alleged that Mr. Di Maano had tried to coax him into signing a prepared

resignation letter which he had no hand in writing. This is refuted by Mr. Di Maano’s presentation of a

handwritten resignation letter which prima facie shows that it was made with Mr. Moor’s handwriting thus

we can say that there is no dismissal in the first place which finally leads us to the conclusion that there

could be no illegal dismissal at all for the source of the delict is absent in the first place.

Dismissal, under Articles 282 & 283 of Presidential Decree 442 otherwise known as the Labor Code may

be due to Just or Authorized causes, the former stemming from delinquent acts of the employee and the

latter stemming from the introduction of labor saving measures. It is clear that there is no dismissal given

that Mr. Moor had made a resignation letter which is thus an act of voluntarily terminating his employment

out of his own volition which is certainly not dismissal as enunciated in Articles 282 & 283 of the Labor

Code.

The allegation of undue scrutiny and disdain

Mr. Moor alleges that Mr. Di Maano had developed an undue disdain and anger against him for no apparent

nor justifiable reason at all. This is easily negated by Mr. Di Maano’s manner of answer which shows an

utmost display of professionalism. Furthermore, Mr. Moor’s allegation that Mr. Di Maano had hated him

for allegedly smoking in the company premises is refuted by records showing that he had admitted to

smoking and apologized for the same. Thus the smoking allegation is indeed true and is a violation of

company policy which certainly behooves Mr. Moor to take action.

The allegations on the 13th Month Pay & SIL.

Mr. Moor accused the HRD for frequently delaying payment of 13th month pay and liquidation of the SIL.

Records show however that Mr. Moor had received his 13th month pay within the reglementary period

enunciated by law and that he had been payed his unused SIL. His submissions falter in the face of contrary

evidence.

The allegations of undue deductions from wages

Mr. Moor alleges that the HRD department had made unjustifiable deductions from his wages including

deductions for mortuary aid of departed employees and hospital assistance for ill colleagues. Mr. Di Maano

did not address this allegation in his answer.

Under the rules of deductions of wages in Rule VII, Book II of the IRR of the Labor Code, only deductions

connected with statutory monetary benefits and those which are expressedly authorized by the employee

are allowed. Absent any answer from Mr. Di Maano, Mr. Moor’s allegations of wage deductions for

mortuary aid of departed employees and hospital assistance for ill colleagues is with merit.

VI.) Alternative Course of Action

The best course of action for the matter at hand is an amicable resolution between the parties. While the

majority of Mr. Moor’s allegations do not stand on firm credulity still it is in the best interest of all involved

to settle the matter without litigation.

If amicable settlement cannot be had, Mr. Moor may still seek recourse from the National Labor Relations

Commission through the initiation of litigation however, as seen in the analysis of the facts of the case, only

his allegations of undue deductions of wages stand on firm credulity which is however still disputable.

VII.) Recommendation

Wherefore the premises considered, the complaint of Mr. Moor on illegal dismissal, untimely payment of

his 13th month pay & failure of the HRD to liquidate his unused SIL ought to be dismissed due to the lack

of preponderance of evidence. Mr. Moor’s allegations on undue deductions in his wages should be further

investigated however and a decision therein ought to be deferred until proper inquisition. On the matter of

undue deduction of wages, the testimonies of the accounting offices should also be collected since they

play an integral role in the allowance of the deduction after which a decision should be made based on a

holistic perusal of all departments and functions involved.

While sympathy ought to be accorded to an employee struggling against his employer, such sympathy is

bereft from a proper place if such struggle is without merit. Indeed, as much as Mr. Moor’s disposition in

losing his job is unfortunate, still it had come about by his own volition and he cannot just maliciously

blame others for his indiscretions. Indeed, one cannot have his cake and eat it too.

The evidence against Mr. Moor’s allegations is clear. He had failed to back his allegations which thus

proved fatal to his malicious cause.