Republic of the Philippines
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. 1
PEPITO
MANALOTO(COMPLAINANT
) VS IQOR PHILIPPINES
(RESONDENT)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Complainant in these case is Pepito Manaloto, 22 years old,
Filipino and Residing currently at 123 Kalsada Street, Brgy
Townode , Quezon City.
2. The Complainant was Hired on August 21, 2019 by IQOR
Philippines as a Customer service representative.
3. Pepito Manaloto back on November 2020 started his “Tiktok”
channel , and since then Uploaded several videos showing his
daily life as a Call center agent, and the struggles of being one,
during the time of the Corona Virus. After several months of
continues creation of his content on the social media platform,
the complainant gained a decent amount of following and a lot
of attention from the people hereby entertained by his contents .
4. During the early period of January 2022, the respondent found
out that the complainant was in fact sharing clips and images of
the companies operation on social media which the company
claimed “Strictly forbidden” as it can give away companies
confidentiality in operations and is a clear breach of their signed
contract.
5. Through an email sent by the company to the Complainant
dated January 14, 2022. The company Immediately attached a
notice for termination to the Complainant because of alleged
“Willful Breach of Trust, and Fraud”. The content of the email
attached:
“Dear Pepito Manaloto
On January 5 2022, the head of the floors operation through the reports of the
same employees by the company discovered that your posted content on social media is
clearly exposing parts of the company premises which can be considered as a vital center
for operations, it was also brought in our knowledge that the tools you where entrusted
to use are also partially clipped on several videos that you uploaded on “Tiktok” . These
can be considered as Fraudulent on our behalf as you are clearly using the premises of
the company and its operation to gain extra monetary income without the companies
consent. All of these serious violations of Fraud, has already been discussed during your
first and quarterly orientations, In-fact the contract the you have signed during your Job
1
offer, includes the clear consequences of Posting and/ Broadcasting the operations of the
company to the Public. Due to all of these reasons that I regretfully Inform you , that
effective on January 16, 2022 you are hereby terminated from your position of Customer
Service Representative I due to clear violations of company policy and your written
contract.
Yours Sincerely
HR Manager
6.Immediatly on the next day January 15, 2021, Pepito Manaloto
without the knowledge that he has just been terminated, still attended his
duties but later on approached by the Floor manager and was personally
informed that he was just terminated for Fraud and Willful breach of trust
and later on escorted out by the security.
ISSUES
Complainant respectfully submits the following issues for the
resolution of the Honorable Commission:
(1) Whether or not the complainant was illegally dismissed
(2) Whether or not the Complainants actions are fraudulent and is a
vial reason for immediate termination.
COMPLAINANT WAS NOT AFFORDED THE DUE PROCESS OF
TERMINATION
It must be stressed herein that the law requires the TWO(2) Notices before
an employee can be legally Dismissed by the employer Art 292(b) LC, In
which the company has failed to do so, It is clear that the complainant was
only given the Notice of Termination, without even being afforded the
opportunity to defend or explain himself on a proper hearing or a forum.
The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute essential elements of
due process in cases of employee dismissal; the requirement of notice is
intended to inform the employee concerned of the employer's intent to
dismiss and the reason for the proposed dismissal; upon the other hand, the
requirement of hearing affords the employee an opportunity to answer his
employer's charges against him accordingly to defend himself therefrom
2
before dismissal is effected. Neither of these two requirements can be
dispensed with without running afoul of the due process requirement of the
1987 Constitution.(Cocoland Development Corporation vs NLRC,Jeremias
Mago)
WHAT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS WILLFULL BREACH OF
TRUST?
The company cannot consider the complainants action as Fraudulent or is an
omission of fraudulent activity, as the clips and videos uploaded by the
complainant was done in good faith and without the intention to reveal , sell,
or take advantage what the company consider as Confidential premises of
operations, instead it was done with the hopes of educating the likes of the
complainants working in the same industry.
Further the actions of the Complainant are clearly not answerable to the
companies policy to be sanctioned as willful breach of trust , because as it
was said on the later that the complainant is only holding a Customer
Service position, and has not applied for any managerial job that is in a
position of trust and confidence.
Position of trust and confidence is one where a person is entrusted with
confidence on delicate matters, or with the custody, handling, or care and
protection of the employer’s property. To this class belong ,those vested
with the powers or prerogatives to lay down management policies and/or to
hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline
Employees or effectively recommend such managerial actions. (Pandoy v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 67664, May 20, 1992) and/or funds (Gonzales v NLRC, 355
SCRA 197).
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that
judgment be issued declaring that the complainant has been
ILLEGALLY DISMISSED by the respondent.
FURTHER, it is respectfully prayed that the respondents be ordered to
pay or issue to the complainant, as the case may be:
3
(a) BACKWAGES from the date of his illegal dismissal on
January 16, 2022 up to the time he is REINSTATED to his former
position without loss of benefits.
(b) MORAL DAMAGES of P200,000.00.
(c) EXEMPLARY DAMAGES of P200,000.00.
(d) Attorney’s fees of Ten Percent of Damages AWARDED.
(e) His CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYMENT whether or not he
is reinstated.
FINALLY, the complainants respectfully prays for such and other
reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.
Quezon City, November January 25, 2022
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Atty. Kristine G. Apruebo
Counsel for Complainant
