Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

Respondent's Position Paper on Dismissal

Respondent's position paper argues that: 1) Complainant failed to mention the company was in a critical financial status from 2010-2012 based on audited statements. 2) Complainant misrepresented positive results that were later disproved in a 2013 audit. 3) Complainant ordered construction materials from her own company when the respondent had no construction projects, representing a conflict of interest. 4) Complainant admitted not responding to the notice to explain from management, showing negligence on her part rather than the respondent's.

Uploaded by

Inna De Leon
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

Respondent's Position Paper on Dismissal

Respondent's position paper argues that: 1) Complainant failed to mention the company was in a critical financial status from 2010-2012 based on audited statements. 2) Complainant misrepresented positive results that were later disproved in a 2013 audit. 3) Complainant ordered construction materials from her own company when the respondent had no construction projects, representing a conflict of interest. 4) Complainant admitted not responding to the notice to explain from management, showing negligence on her part rather than the respondent's.

Uploaded by

Inna De Leon
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Legal Case Introduction
  • Respondent's Reply and Position
  • Conclusion and Prayer

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT


NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
QUEZON CITY

A,
Complainant,

- versus -

Company B,
Respondent.
X-------------------------------------------------------X

RESPONDENT’S REPLY
POSITION PAPER
_______________

Respondent by counsel, to the Honorable Labor Arbiter, respectfully states as follows:

1. In his position paper, complainant did not mention that based on the Audited Financial
Statements from 2010 to 2012, respondent company is in critical status. Thus, she failed
to refer and implement year end closing procedures to prevent the company from losing.

2. Instead, through her misrepresentations, it projected positive results which were later
proved to be inaccurate by the management audit in 2013.

3. Complainant also failed to mention that there was no house construction undertaken by
Company B at the time the oversupply of construction materials were ordered from
Company C which the complainant practically owns. Therefore, she conveniently
covered the fact that there was conflict of interest through such transaction.

4. Complainant practically admitted that she did not respond to the Notice to Explain given
by the management, hence proving further that negligence was done not on the part of the
respondent company but on the complainant.

5. In the position paper, it is claimed by the complainant that Company B refused to grant
the extension sought by the former to file a response against the charges of gross
misconduct.

6. However, the respondent company indeed granted the first extension sought by the
complainant.
7. Verily, complainant was afforded all reasonable opportunities to justify her actions of
gross misconduct. However, complainant failed to refute the charges against her by not
responding to the Notice to Explain given by the respondent company. Under the
circumstances, such action negates any illegal dismissal. Respondent’s management
prerogative under the circumstances cannot be denied. Accordingly, the dismissal of the
complaint is proper and legal.

PRAYER
____________

WHEREFORE, respondents respectfully pray that the instant case be dismissed for utter
lack of merit.

Other relief, just and equitable under the premises, is likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, November 15, 2014.

INNA ELYJAH BEATRICE C. DE LEON


Counsel for the Respondent

Copy furnished:

A,
Complainant

JED FROILAN DAET,


Counsel for the Complainant

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
7. Verily, complainant was afforded all reasonable opportunities to justify her actions of gross misconduct. However, comp

You might also like